posted on September 8, 2002 08:22:29 AM new
I'd vote for that. One of the scams seen by social services by Mexicans is the mom coming here to give birth (another abuse of our medical system, you don't think they pay anything), which in turn allows them to milk our social services in the child's name.
posted on September 9, 2002 11:38:29 AM new
When I was in the Navy many years ago, we visited the country of Yugoslavia under Tito. I was talking to one of the locals who told me about how when every able-bodied citizen turns 18, they -must- choose one of two means of service for two years: either serve in the military or in the police force.
The idea of that has always appealed to me. My own experience in the military is repeated endlessly, with life lessons taught and a whole lotta growing up to do. Heck, I still fold my clothes the Navy-way!
I grew up a lot in the military and I've seen it force a lot of kids to grow up too. Not that everyone did a terrific job of it, but everyone who went in and wasn't kicked out, came out a much, much better person and citizen for it.
For instance, what employer would want someone who's been in the military a job compared to someone who hasn't? I'll tell you - almost ANY of them would? Why? Because ex-military tend to be on time, work hard without much complaint, and their know how to prioritize and plan ahead. Skills not usually learned by osmosis in our society.
I would be all for such a two-year program here; but I would also expand it to one critical third option: Foreign Service. By that I mean, go and change bed pans in Zimbabwe for two years or help out in other third world nations doing stuff like the programs proposed by Kennedy. This program would counter-act one of the biggest hindrances to a good working democracy in our country, that is, provincial attitudes.
Yet, although one can easily argue the good that it would do our society to create this sort of program, would it be a violation of our civil rights to make such laws and to enforce such programs when clearly not in time of war? What do you think?
ed. to add UBB link
[ edited by Borillar on Sep 9, 2002 11:42 AM ]
posted on September 9, 2002 11:59:01 AM new
I think conscription is based on the idea the state owns you and it allows you to exist rather than you allowing it to exist. It is a polite way to describe slavery.
posted on September 9, 2002 12:00:37 PM new"I believe when we discussed this issue recently someone stated that there are some looking into changing the law so that children born in the US by illegal's wouldn't automatically gain citizenship.'
posted on September 9, 2002 12:17:24 PM new
The best deal is what Canada offers. An American can come here, have their baby and the baby gets dual citizenship. Can't beat that.
posted on September 9, 2002 12:20:05 PM new
I think I want to move to Canada. There is something in the air down here that is driving people nuts. LOL!
posted on September 9, 2002 01:29:08 PM new
>I think conscription is based on the idea the state owns you . . .
Interesting observation. You wouldn't say that it is the obligation of citizens to contribute then, because conscription is the province of the state? I can agree with that. It is not the purpose of the state to enforce the Good of society at the point of a bayonet.
How then would we have our youth enter such services to perform such menial and dangerous tasks if they deceided not to participate? And would that be fair to those who do decide to participate and perhaps, risk their lives in Zimbabwe changing bedpans?
posted on September 9, 2002 01:48:38 PM new
Borillar, how do you keep the politicians from exempting their kids and their contributors' kids while they send the rest of the country's youth off to war or to change bedpans?
[ edited by saabsister on Sep 9, 2002 01:50 PM ]
posted on September 9, 2002 03:05:22 PM new
>Borillar, how do you keep the politicians from exempting their kids and their contributors' kids . . .
The question there to my mind is, "In time of War or conflict, should citizens be allowed to contribute money in the place of a person?" I say No, because citizens are already obligated to fund the War through taxation. In order to defend the nation, a state must enforce conscription of its citizens at bayonet point if need be. In a real democracy, no eligible citizen is spared this duty in time of War in order to defend the nation.
I do know the historical relevance of your question, however, from ancient Greek and Persian times down through the middle ages and the British Empire, whereby the rich and elite were allowed to buy their way out of service or to purchase officer commissions. Even in our enlightened democracy, so praised by Lincoln, was the very one who allowed this tradition of allowing the rich to purchase their way out of danger. Even the Revolutionary War had that same allowance; however, they were so hard up for cash that it was acceptable. Our democracy is longer in that position, and so, I think that aspect should be abolished.
How do we keep them from doing it, you ask? I think that it would take more than just changing the laws. I think that we ought to inculcate Americans that personal public service is a duty and that someone who does not when they were clearly able to ought to be looked down upon. Heinlein, the author, suggested that performing such public service was one way in which a person might reach their majority and be allowed to become and to enjoy the benefits of Citizenship. Might we not remove the citizenship-by-birth laws in favor of making compelling incentives to gain Citizenship?
posted on September 9, 2002 03:17:24 PM new
The state should run its affairs in such a way that the youth and others desire to contribute to it's preservation. When we had a revolution there were plenty enough who volunteered to fight. When the state no longer is viewed as worthy of commitment then it can cease to exist if the citizens view the alternative as not worthy of their effort to avoid by supporting the current system. I see no absolute right for the stste to continue it's control upon the dead bodies of unwilling participants.
I can see using priviledges as an incentive to encourage service - but not rights. Rights are not rights if you have to buy them.
posted on September 9, 2002 04:14:42 PM new
Borillar,
When I made that comment, I was thinking that it would be inhumane to return these children to some poverty ridden country. But, while researching the problem I see that we can't even take care of our own children. The following article, for example is an eye opener.
I think that the priorities in this country are not in order. We will not spend money on children or health care or education but we will send money for weapons to other countries. That's screwed up!
You don't see them on the streets or huddled against the cold on a steam grate, but they exist. Living in shelters, cars, or motels, or doubled and tripled up in the apartments and homes of relatives and friends, hundreds of thousands of families with children are homeless. Families with children are the fastest growing segment of the homeless population, and the U.S. Department of Education estimates more than 800,000 children and youth find themselves with no permanent place to call home for at least some of each year.
In 1998, states reported 615,336 children in grades K--12 were homeless nationwide, but professionals who work with homeless youth in the schools feel the actual figures may be much higher. "We don't really know the numbers," says Jill Moss Greenberg, Homeless Education Counselor with Baltimore County Public Schools in Maryland. "The kids we know about are the tip of the iceberg." Moss Greenberg estimates Baltimore County, which does not include the city of Baltimore, identifies 300-500 homeless students each year in a district of approximately 107,000 students in 162 schools.
However great their number, every homeless child has the same right to a free, appropriate public education as every other school-age youth living in this nation. It is a fundamental right. How easy it is for a homeless child to access that right, however, is a different story.
posted on September 9, 2002 05:42:28 PM new
gravid, you are saying that the state must meet the standards of the community in order to have a moral imperative to conscript or to require service. I can agree with that. There is an obligation to Americans, for instance, to throw off the state any time that it turns into a tyranny or becomes despotic. This is found in the preamble to the American Declaration of Independence:
"WE hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness -- That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed, that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these Ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its Foundation on such Principles, and organizing its Powers in such Form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."
What is a mistake, to my mind, is the claim that the Declaration of Independence is not a legal document, i.e. not a body of laws as such and therefore, inconsequential to legal proceedings. However, I believe that it take a form higher than public law as the ideals and guiding principles which our body of just laws are founded upon. In that sense, it can not be ignored. The state must be worthy of its Citizens or it is not just the right of its citizens to throw off such bad government, but an actual duty. I think that any good Constituional law professor would agree with me on that.
> Rights are not rights if you have to buy them.
Continuing in that vein, however, is the notion that citizens have an obligation to create and to maintain good government. I would say that few people would disagree that in order to throw off a well established despotic government, sacrifice and payment in blood must be had, as the state does not willingly give up its power to anyone for any purpose. If we must perforce sacrifice and pay in our own blood, are we not purchasing our rights thereby? Rights purchased in blood? I'd like to point out that our "Rights" was originally purchased with said blood from the English and that many generations have continued to pay in blood to keep those rights intact.
>I can see using priviledges as an incentive to encourage service - but not rights.
Fair enough. I am interpreting your thoughts as each human being is accorded these rights as a basic, inalienable right not privy to the state to remove without Due Process of law. That being the foundation - our birth rights as Citizens, then what privilege(s) would you use to entice qualified youth to perform service that would not violate the "all Men are created equal" part of our democracy?
posted on September 9, 2002 05:55:04 PM new
>When I made that comment, I was thinking that it would be inhumane to return these children to some poverty ridden country.
I see. OK. I do not wish to get into an argument about the merits and demerits of returning people from the poverty here in America (as they are illegals without rights to work or working rights), but DeSqurrel did make an interesting point that I feel equally applies here.
I was arguing in another thread that our income was worse per capita than back in the 1950s. But the point, never proven one way or another, was made that the difference is in spending, not in prices and income levels. In others words, if we all want to live like we did back in the 1950s we have to stop this consumerism which we are impoverishing ourselves thereby.
To apply it to your statement above, I'd say that since these fine folks have managed to feed themselves for decades before they came here illegally, returning them to poverty is not inhumane of us. That is because there are two different living standards in places: theirs and ours. Many of these people have never seen refrigeration or electric stoves before. But that does not make them impoverished. History is replete with people who have never seen refrigeration or electric appliances before. Therefore, I feel that our standard of living can not logically be used as a reason to bar these people from being return to their homes.
posted on September 10, 2002 02:39:58 AM new
Some of the inducements the military has used are a good example. The GI Bill for education. And perhaps education for their children - but not grandchildren. I would have no trouble at all having government jobs open only to those who have performed service work or military service in their youth. Running for public office could also be reserved for such. The pay and medical attention for military service should also not be hovering on the edge of poverty. That tells what congress thinks of such service.
It is also reasonable to provide discounted goods to the servers like a PX - but not in response to a survival level wage.
I would have no trouble granting veterans of military or other national service exemption from ever paying fees for permits or licenses again. We have a law here in MI that you can't require sellers permits or business licenses of veterans. The law dates from the Civil war and when the City of Rochester Hills tried to shut down a veterans fruit and vegetable stand here saying he did not have a permit and they would not issue one he used it successfully to show he did not need one.
I would expand it to all park entry fees, tolls, court filings, driver and business licenses, building permits, even perhaps franking priviledges like congress. A better retirement plan like congress lavishes apon themselves would be a huge inducement. Although we can't afford one like that for everyone, and they should not have such an unequal one themselves.
Of course if service were the only way to such status in the community then it sghould be open to everyone. They should be required to find a job for you to serve even if you are too tall, or in a wheel chair, or deaf, or fat. Don't see why age should be a barrier either.
posted on September 10, 2002 06:19:41 AM new
saabsister - how do you keep the politicians from exempting their kids and their contributors' kids while they send the rest of the country's youth off to war or to change bedpans? You've brought up a sore subject for many. And IMO that should be stopped.
bunnicula - ..they kept taking off... true..and thanks for the chuckle.
gravid - What wonderful suggestions!!! I like a lot of them. Offering better insentives to youths and others. And you are so right about Congress and how well they take care of themselves, while our military families struggle to stay off welfare. I also like the suggested requirement of past/present military service before running for public office. Especially where they will be in the position to send our men and women to a war situation when they, themselves, have no personal experience of what war is really like. Will never happen, of course, but a great suggestion anyway.
Also as one of your suggestions you said 'it should be open to anyone'. Absolutely agree there. When in Hawaii, for the birth of our second granddaughter, I was amazed at the number of disabled employees working in their military hospital. I felt pride that they were given jobs they were capible of handling [according to their varied disabilities] rather than 'being put out to pasture'. And the number of women military personel also surprised me. I'd bet more than half the employees there were women. So women must have many reasons for joining the military too.
posted on September 10, 2002 08:15:41 AM new
Linda_K said: I also like the suggested requirement of past/present military service before running for public office. Especially where they will be in the position to send our men and women to a war situation when they, themselves, have no personal experience of what war is really like.
It sounds like you mean "past/present WAR EXPERIENCE service," not military service. When you say those in positions to send our young to war would be required to "have personal experience of what war is really like" before they run for public office you are leaving out a huge segment of the population!
Many of the WW II vets are getting too old to start careers in politics, so the others who have seen war first hand would be from the Korean, Viet Nam and Gulf Wars. Am I forgetting any major ones?
If you are talking actual "war experience" then you can leave out half of the U.S. population. Women were not allowed to fight in the front lines, so wouldn't have "war experience" in all
wars but the Gulf War if I am right. So you would leave out generations.
Women still can't serve on submarines yet (a Diane Sawyer show). I don't understand the reasoning for that.
Women have recently been discriminated against by the military while serving overseas weren't they? This tramples on their rights and keeps young women from joining. They were made to wear Burkas, couldn't leave the bases without males accompanying them in Saudi Arabia and had to sit in the car's back seat. It took a count case to dislodge the burka thinking didn't it?
From what I understand, electing to make females take a "back seat" to males and not going off base alone still stands! AND I would be happy to know I am out dated on that one! If we were out to keep with Saudi Arabian ways, men should have worn their typical male outfits off base.
Until the military officers and members of the armed services believe in equality for every being, any type of military government shouldn't be an option. Unless, females are willing to give up ANY rights gained, that is!
Why would we want to make this a militarist society? We still have men beating up women here in the states and raping women when they are in places like Asia. The military always come
up with a reason why it is happening...stress, etc.
I read (or maybe heard on radio) that women are still having problems at military schools. These officer's training schools are a jumping off point for higher positions.
Women as a whole have to remember they are STILL not considered equal. The equal rights amendment did not pass. When women make 1.00 for 1.00's work (instead of .70) we could talk about changing society to a more militarist one. When there are almost equal amounts of ALL beings in congress and ALL military positions we can consider it. When black farmer's get the frickin' money they won from the USDA court case we can consider it. When black men aren't used by the military for scientific experiments, we can consider it.
Linda, it was nice that you saw so many women in the Hawaiian military hospital. But, isn't that
where women have always been in the military? Isn't that or the secretarial pool where most women are usually assigned?
posted on September 10, 2002 08:54:24 AM new
Mornin' aposter - WOW! Where to begin. Let me start out by restating...I don't think this 'suggestion' will ever take place.
I just liked the idea.
It sounds like you mean "past/present WAR EXPERIENCE service," not military service. I don't think it need be limited only to war experience, just military experience. It's the commitment to our country and the willingness to fight for it, that I feel most strongly about, not that one has survived a war situation.
Women still can't serve on submarines yet/Women have recently been discriminated against by the military/made to wear Burkas/couldn't leave the bases without males accompanying them in Saudi Arabia/had to sit in the car's back seat. These points you make are correct IMO. And I believe women will and can work to make the changes they don't agree with. They are doing so. I also see some of the items on your list as being protective of rather than to discriminate against women.
Why would we want to make this a militarist society? Did I say that? I was referring to the list of incentives that gravid had mentioned. If people choose to join for the benefits they'd receive, I think they should be able to.
I read (or maybe heard on radio) that women are still having problems at military schools. I did too. But with the 'airing out' of these problems, changes are occurring. Positive changes.
Women as a whole have to remember they are STILL not considered equal. In some ways I agree with that. But what I'm seeing is great improvement from how things use to be.
When women make 1.00 for 1.00's work (instead of .70) we could talk about changing society to a more militarist one. Well, in the millitary they do. Same rank, same pay.
When black farmer's get the frickin' money they won from the USDA court case we can consider it. When black men aren't used by the military for scientific experiments, we can consider it. We can consider it anytime. We're only talking about citizens and what rights and responsibilities we have as citizens and ways to promote service to one's country. At least that's the way I was taking it.
isn't that where women have always been in the military? Isn't that or the secretarial pool where most women are usually assigned? I saw women in the newspaper office working. They were journalists. And I saw female doctors and nurses doing their work...other than that, I only saw women in uniform...don't know what their job descriptions were.
posted on September 10, 2002 09:06:18 AM new
>Women still can't serve on submarines yet (a Diane Sawyer show). I don't understand the reasoning for that.
Aposter, every branch of military service has unique aspects to it that the public is not generally privy to understanding. I served for four years aboard aircraft carriers fixing aircraft. As much as I firmly believe in the equality of women and all jobs that they can do as well as men should be open to them, I was very shocked at women being put aboard combat ships. I was shocked for several reasons. The everyday workload onboard ship is physically intensive for enlisted personnel. If the ship was under attack and damaged, on fire, sinking, all hands need to be working furiously to save themselves and the ship. Yet, on land bases, I have seen where the heavy, dirty work was relegated only to men because women just do not meet the physical requirements. If a ship ever gets into trouble, women are going to cost people lives if the do not qualify for the physical and psychological aspects that are necessary to stay alive during combat. I mean, if three people need to close a hatch that is pouring in seawater and one of them happens to be a woman who was put there for political reasons aka "being PC", you can't have the woman scream out that she isn't capable to help save the ship!
The other aspect is confinement. Yes, our combat ships at sea spend more than half their time in various ports. That saves on limited fuel and resources. But during a national emergency, these ships can be out there for six months or more without ever sighting land. Luckily, the longest I was ever out was almost a month. Tensions were high and claustrophobia was rampant with panic attacks barely under control. With all males onboard and of course, heterosexuality, there was no sexual release for all of that testosterone coursing through their veins. I can't really describe it. It is both psychological, emotional and a physical impact with sexual repression thrown in. I hope you can see at least the horizon of what it might be like for you.
Now, six months of that non-stop is harsh for anyone. But being onboard a submarine, especially a boomer, means being underwater for long periods of time. The missile subs "boomers" would pull out of port and then silently slip under water. Six months later, they'd silently surface and slip back into their homeport. While the sub has to come up every several weeks for fresh food supplies, in time of war, they do not come up at all for months. And even when they do come up, only a privileged few get to go topside and breath in fresh air and see their surroundings. Having a woman onboard would be suicide. I hope that you understand that.
posted on September 10, 2002 09:17:07 AM new
All it takes is the guts to tell these slime ball Saudis who are being protected that if they don't want the female soldiers that's fine - but it is all or none. Then they can take over the job of protecting their oil themselves 100% - and don't call in desperation when Saddam comes rolling across the border. What is the loss anyway? I can't imaigine anyone taking the oil that could not be kicked out after. It would be too late for the previous owners - but tough.
I strongly suspect that the politicians and military commanders find it real easy to cave in to the attitude of the middle-eastern men because a lot of them privatly hold women in very low esteem and would be happy if they could discriminate as openly as the "allies" do.
Perhaps they should make sure that women can go alone off base whenever they please but they are also urged to wear a side arm or carry a M-16. Might make for a little more respect and safety.
posted on September 10, 2002 09:27:42 AM new
Gravid, those were some very good ideas! And for many youths, they would be encouraged as they are not now. My concern was not to create an Elite class in our democracy by too grandiose an incentive.
The difficulty with whatever incentive we can come up with is that young people have a hard time seeing how sacrificing NOW means great rewards later down the road. I was watching the Science Channel on a program on just this very topic last week. To say it short, the forebrains of people do not develop fully until after a person's teenage years. The forebrains are necessary for good judgment, common sense, and planning in advance. This means that many will not serve because they can not see how this will benefit them, no matter how explicit we make it. I joined the military because my family was impoverished and there was no money to send me to college, and without skills or training, I had no job opportunities in the mid 1970's. The Navy was a way to get out of my situation. I did not and could not foresee how the GI Bill was going to help me as it eventually did. This is why I teeter between compulsory service and non-compulsory service.
Perhaps we could use a negative incentive: compulsory service into the military - Army or Marines, or voluntary service into any of them. We could still have all of those good incentives in place. If one did not volunteer, you got the worst of jobs in the military to do. If you did volunteer, then you could take your pick of jobs available - like it used to be when the Draft was around. One thing is for certain: while young people may not know a good deal when they are offered one, they DO know the difference between a good deal and a bad deal. So either they volunteer for what duty or service they'd like to perform or the state will make a choice for them. Call it an Obligation for being Born an American.
Now there is a question to answer (aside from the above), is the very concept of Citizenship outdated? Should Citizenship be abolished and the Constitutional Rights be granted to everybody and anyone who washes ashore? Should our democratic ideals be constrained within the boundaries set forth, not just of our nation, but also by the constraints of Citizenship? Is Citizenship a hindrance to democracy, rather than a help? Don't be surprised to read the answers people give to this one!
posted on September 10, 2002 09:37:48 AM newIf you did volunteer, then you could take your pick of jobs available - like it used to be when the Draft was around. Still is that way [as of 6-7 years ago]. They test you, see where you score and then they'll train you for the job you're most interested in [if you qualify].
posted on September 10, 2002 10:13:44 AM new
The problem I have with the current idea of citizenship is that the bill of rights says that these rights are a fundamental right of all men. That means that if someone shows up at the border and says "I agree with your system and want these rights you acknowledge and want to come in and pursue my happiness in America because I am denied them where I am now." - Then how can anyone tell him "No that document means that AMERICANS when it says "all men" and we can exclude you from enjoying all these rights and even deny you equal protection of our legal system.
It is hypocricy of the worst sort. It means we don't really believe these rights are fundamental to all men or we would open the door to anyone who wants them.
They close the door to immigrants who are looking for economic freedom as of less value than say freedom of speech. But the truth is that property rights are at the heart of all other freedoms. If someone else controls your ability to feed yourself and house care for your family they have the ability to control all the exercise of these supposedly superior freedoms.
If you can rationalize denying these rights for non-citizens then there is always the danger they can be denied the citizen also.
We see that now with citizens being administrativly declared "enemy combatants" and losing their rights to hapeous corpus, trial and legal representation.
posted on September 10, 2002 10:31:57 AM new
gravid- The "open door" policy is admirable but should there be ANY quotas or limitations? Should ALL people, particularly those of Middle Eastern descent, be allowed to enter simply because they state that they believe in our constitution(agree with our system)? If a billion people came to our shores asking for entry should they ALL be taken in? Your idealism is such that you don't seem to see the true logistics of the problem. There must be strict quotas, strict criteria and a limit on the numbers of sick or those otherwise unable to work.
posted on September 10, 2002 10:35:25 AM newIf you did volunteer, then you could take your pick of jobs available - like it used to be when the Draft was around.
But it didn't work that way when the draft was around. My husband joined the AF to avoid going to Vietnam as an enlisted man in the Army or Marines. After passing up a golden opportunity to go to language school at the Presidio - he figured they'd teach him Vietnamese - he ended up at a bomb dump in Vietnam anyway, minus the language skills. The GI Bill did pay for most of his college course work though and some OJT while he worked for a utility company. (By the way, he would probably agree with much of what you say.)
posted on September 10, 2002 11:00:43 AM new
Sorry, not about citizenship, I know. I need to get back to work, but wanted to comment on what I see are male's ways of keeping women down.
Linda. No, you didn't say anything about a militaristic society. That is what was being alluded to in other people's replies. I think a society where everyone (minus weak women apparently) is required to complete military service is called a militaristic society. JMHO. And I realize I haven't included the non-military service that was being discussed.
Borillar, I usually agree with you on a lot of things as I lurk, but what you have just said is a load of horse-droppings! You said:
The everyday workload onboard ship is physically intensive for enlisted personnel. If the ship was under attack and damaged, on fire, sinking, all hands need to be working furiously to save themselves and the ship. Yet, on land bases, I have seen where the heavy, dirty work was relegated only to men because women just do not meet the physical requirements.
Somewhere I read that theory was shot to he11. That many women are as strong as men and
can do the same required work as their male counterparts. It was a couple years ago. I am sure
the "women being weaker" thought will leave on.
I mean, if three people need to close a hatch that is pouring in seawater and one of them happens to be a woman who was put there for political reasons aka "being PC", you can't have the woman scream out that she isn't capable to help save the ship!
Aren't some men incapable of the heavy work of closing a hatch? Do you leave them out of service and off the front lines because of it? Would you be afraid of them "screaming out they were incapable of saving the ship!" or is that kind of thinking just reserved for females?
Recent research show men's brains are capable of focusing on one thing at a time, women's brains can focus on several. Wouldn't it be better to have brains thinking in different ways, reasoning differently in times of combat? If I were in combat would I want a male capable of single tasking or a woman capable of multi-tasking with me, assuming both had the same physical capacities?
Tensions were high and claustrophobia was rampant with panic attacks barely under control. With all males onboard and of course, heterosexuality, there was no sexual release for all of that testosterone coursing through their veins. I can't really describe it. It is both psychological, emotional and a physical impact with sexual repression thrown in. I hope you can see at least the horizon of what it might be like for you.
I really feel for all men stationed on board those ships. What you are saying is because men are weak and can't control themselves and their emotions women must be penalized, right? Women cannot serve on destroyers or subs because men might get out of control?
That sounds to me like the mid-easterners telling women (and making them believe) that their
bodies and faces are a deterrent to men so must be covered at all times with burkas, or other covering in other countries. Men are weak, so women must pay for it. Am I wrong on this one?
I have a solution to the "no women/because of weak men" theory. Commission a sub or destroyer for service women only. Before you say, that would cost to much, isn't that what we have now? Ships for single sexes? That way men won't have to be cooped up with women, the women won't have to worry about be attacked by so-called weak men and the government wouldn't have to worry about the testosterone-laden atmosphere which must get pretty thick there.
Those women who feel medals and combat duty are important for political office or to climb the corporate ladder could have a chance to win them. AND, the women might even get statues erected in their honor, instead of having to fight for one lousy one for how many years!
[ edited by aposter on Sep 10, 2002 11:12 AM ]
posted on September 10, 2002 11:09:59 AM new
Hey....now there's an idea....Commission a sub or destroyer for service women only. Maybe a couple of them. Let them show the 'boys' what they are capable of. I like it.
posted on September 10, 2002 11:18:59 AM new
Things have a way of working when you follow the idealistic course instead of expediency.
For example if there is an open door policy what is the reaction of other governments going to be? They will find themselves faced with the loss of their best and brightest - the doers who are motivated to come here. That will make them liberalize their policies or face a talant drain that will doom their economies in a few generations.
There will never be a literal Billion wanting to come here. Most of humanity is content to stay where they are used to nd comfortable unless some very compelling reasons make them move to survive. When I was in school in North Carolina I was astonished how many of my classmates had never been out of the COUNTY we lived in - much less the state or country.
If resources are used with wisdom this country could absorb several times it's present population with ease. If you ever fly from coast to coast on this continent most of it is unused. The current habit of paving over the best land will have to stop at some point in the future. The opening of space based resources will also open a completely different era of economic change. There will be a time within the next three generations if people choose to follow the options available that there will be more physical resources available than can be used. The automation of manufacturing will mean that the real cost of goods will be so low that the political control of them will determine the cost rather than any scarcity.
If you take a small asteroid and vacuum distill it with sunlight into the separate elements the bulk of the body will mean that steel - titanium- aluminum and other metals are dirt cheap. The value of the products will all be in the intellectual property rights of the design. That is where computers are right now. The trace elements such as gold and platinum will be recovered in such large quantities that they will have no more inflated value due to being rare and will simply be another engineering material. Of course if the opportunity is lost it may be the Japanese or Chinese who build a space based economy and exclude others.
The biggest problem with population is going to come not from immigration but from life extension from the medical profession. If the life expectancy goes to 150 years or so in the next 50 years that will completely change everyone's view of such programs as social security. The control of who has access to such medical care with be a huge hot potato also.
Let me start out by restating...I don't think this 'suggestion' will ever take place.