It's getting a little DRAFTY in here

After the November midterm elections, Representative Charlie Rangel, who will soon be the chairman of the powerful House Ways and Means committee, offered his own solution of how to handle the war in Iraq. Rangel, a Democratic Congressman from NY, is planning on introducing legislation next month that will bring back the draft for all men and women from ages 18-41.

"If we're going to challenge Iran and challenge North Korea and then, as some people have asked, to send more troops to Iraq, we can't do that without a draft," Rangel said.

Is Rangel on to something? Few disagree with the assertion that our military is spread very thin. If Iran goes nuclear (which it probably will), and situation in Iraq isn’t settled (which it probably won’t), where else would the U.S. get their troops if we needed to defend ourselves?

Here’s what we do know: The Selective Service System, an agency independent of the Defense Department, keeps an updated registry of men age 18-25 (now about 16 million) from which to supply untrained draftees that would add to our all-volunteer armed forces if needed.

In other words, they know where to find you.

It’s worth examining the history of the draft in this country. The draft was used during the Civil War, both world wars, and between 1948-1973. Both the Civil War and the War in Vietnam, much like the War in Iraq, were incredibly unpopular. During the Civil War, men could avoid the draft by paying a certain dollar amount to the federal government, or by getting someone to serve in his place. In the 1960’s, a man could get out of serving in Vietnam if he was furthering his education. In other words, in these cases, the well-born were able to avoid battlefield.

Rich man’s war, poor man’s fight.

If conscription were brought back, a change would have to be made. College would no longer be an excuse. Stevenson students (Rangel wants both men and women) beware. Uncle Sam may demand your services in the near future.

So is a draft in the best interest of our republic? Patriot of ’76 asked two of Stevenson’s brightest scholars to weigh in on this issue. We got both the liberal and conservative perspective.

We welcome in two first time bloggers. Angry Young Republican vs. CrewU. Well, who do you think came out on top?


----------------

--Angry Young Republican---

Currently, the United states, along with limited support from other allies is fighting a war in Iraq. This war is not against the Iraqi army, or any specific enemy, but something called an insurgency; defined as an insurrection against an existing government, usually one's own, by a group not recognized as having the status of a belligerent.

Our intentions going in to Iraq have shifted from defeating a Tyrant, and discovering weapons of mass destruction. Now we are in Iraq for different reasons. We are trying to keep the region safe, so it does not become a breeding ground for terrorist activities. Along with that, we are installing a democratic government for stability.

No matter if you believe if our cause is noble or not we started this mess, it is on our heads to get out of it. A recent Gallop poll indicates that a whopping 59% of Americans are already sick of Iraq. As reasonable American people we need to find a solution to get us out of Iraq quickly, while making it safe for the future. The Army has missed its recruiting targets since February and last month unexpectedly lowered its benchmark from 8,050 to 6,700 recruits and still only reached 75 percent of that downsized goal. The National Guard and Reserve have suffered a similar 25 percent shortfall. The army is desperate for solders they are now taking Applicants who score in the 10th to 30th percentile range on the military's standardized aptitude test are now being accepted at higher rates. Making matters worse, junior Army leaders are quitting after their enlistment.

With the army having enlistment problems, and the Iraq conflict going downhill, it is now necessary to reinstate the draft. With more troops on the ground, it would be possible to use a tactic called overwhelming force. This would enable us to shut down the insurgency, and give the military the ability to select the most suitable people for combat instead of scraping the bottom of the barrel. On top of that, with more smarter solders, the conflict would end more quickly.

Army captain Phil Carter wrote in the Washington Monthly in March. "It can be the world's superpower, or it can maintain the all-volunteer military, but it probably can't do both."

--CrewU--

There are many reasons why there should not be a military draft. My main problem is it will force people that are against the war to fight and die for cause for which they don’t believe. If someone has a religious or moral objection to shooting someone, I think that it’s unfair for the government to force them to do so.

Another reason is because of the don’t ask, don’t tell law. If a person that was draft went into the recruitment office, and then all they have to do is say out loud that they are gay and then they would not be allowed to go into the military.

The next reason is because of the bill that is going in front of Congress right now has major problems. The bill is stating that there should be a draft for people to serve 2 years over seas for people between the ages of 18-41. There are a couple of problems with this proposal. What happens if a student is in college at the particular point of time? Are people not going to be able to go to college in the off chance that they are going to be called upon? The problem with this is that nobody is going to know when they are going to be called and cannot make any commitments. What are people going to think of the government then? Think about it. A draft will lead to mass protests and a decrease of patriotism.

The last problem with the draft is the medical aspect. A lot of people these days have medical deformities, what is the government going to do with them. Citizens will think that it is unfair that the government is not taking those people into the military. Those people are then going to go have surgery or something to show the government that they are not capable of being medically fit to join the military.

In my opinion the military should be completely voluntary.

----------------------------------------------------

CLICK HERE TO LISTEN TO THIS DEBATE

Hey Democrats, don't get too excited...

One day after seizing both houses of congress in the midterm elections, Democrats were given another reason to jump for joy. The much-embattled Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld, resigned his position. His replacement, Robert Gates, was named immediately by President Bush (the Senate still must confirm him when they reconvene).

Rumsfeld will always be remembered for being the architect for the war in Iraq. He’s credited (or faulted) for lobbying for preemptive strikes, and for wrongly convincing Congress and the American public that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction. He is, after the President and Vice President, the face of this war.

Four years after the official declaration of war, most Republicans will admit that the Defense Department has made countless mistakes in its execution and prosecution. To name just a few, there were too few troops originally deployed, the Iraqi borders were not secured, there was no exit strategy, and the Iraqi Army was dissolved (imagine thousands of unemployed angry young men with weapons). In addition, it seemed as if Rumsfeld and other administration officials were either unaware or unprepared for the post-Saddam insurgency that has claimed far more American lives than the initial fighting.

Knowing these mistakes, Americans cringed every time they heard Rumsfeld say that he had no regrets on the wars prosecution. Rumsfeld’s stubbornness to not change tactics or concede any wrong-doing led scores of Congressman to condemn him and demand his resignation. Many believe that President Bush’s decision not to fire him cost Republicans the midterms.

So isn’t it great news for Democrats that he’s gone? Doesn’t this mean that the President wants to go in a different direction? Possibly a redeployment of troops (Sen. Obama just called for this)? Is this the President’s way of signaling the end of the Bush Doctrine of preemptive war? We all know that the President was not going to resign. By forcing his chief war advisor to do so could mean a new direction. A victory for diplomacy!

Maybe. Or….

As Iran continues to enrich uranium, thus bringing them closer and closer to a nuclear bomb, the White House and the Defense Department are paying very close attention. President Bush and Vice President Cheney have stressed that a nuclear Iran would be a tremendous threat to the Middle East, and to the entire world. Will they sit idly by as Iran joins the “nuclear club?” Will this tough talking President let his successor handle two nuclear members of the axis of evil? If history is any judge, the answer is no.

You have to imagine that in some drawer in some room in the Pentagon (home of the Defense Department) there is a plan to preemptively attack Iran both from the air and on the ground.

If the US decided to attack Iran, most experts predict they would learn from the mistakes of Iraq. In Iraq, Rumsfeld's Defense Department asked for just enough troops to get the job done. If we were to attack Iran, we would need overwhelming force (Patriot of ’76 will discuss the draft later this week). In other words, this would not be a covert action. The Bush administration would need to enlist the support of Congress (the body that officially declares and funds military action), and the American people. This means Congressional hearings, speeches, and intense lobbying by the President and by the Secretary of Defense. Here’s the question: Would Americans really trust Donald Rumsfeld, again?

Perhaps the President asked Rumseld to step down because the former Defense Secretary doesn’t have the one thing the President needs most: credibility. Would we really believe Rumsfeld if he toured the country preaching about preemptive war because of Iranian Weapons of Mass Destruction? Yogi Berra would call that Déjà vu all over again.

If you buy this line of reasoning, then you believe that another preemptive Middle Eastern War is less than two years away.

Here is where Patriot of ’76 will turn it over to you. What does the Rumsfeld resignation mean? Admission of defeat, or preparation for the sequel? A step towards diplomacy, or the first step in the war against Iran?

One thing is for sure- before the Democrats toast to the resignation of the Defense Secretary, it’s worth remembering the President and his advisors understand the political ramifications of every move they make.

Our Democracy’s Hypocrisy? You can bet on it

In July, moments before the 109th Congress recessed, the House of Representatives signed a bill (317-93) that is the most serious attempt to eliminate online gambling. To make sure that the law would be enforced, the resolution took aim at the institutions that makes online betting work: the credit card companies (the online institutions are all headquartered outside of the US, even though half of their customers are American). You can’t bet online without using the plastic, and credit card companies would be subjected to heavy fines if they allowed their holders to make bets online.

This could be the end of virtual poker games and online sports betting.

As we always do on Patriot of ’76, let’s look at both sides of the argument. Online gambling makes betting your savings away that much easier, which can foster addictions and create major financial problems. It’s terrible that a person can throw their money away in the vain hope of becoming an instant millionaire….

PO76 has a few questions: 1) What hotel do you recommend staying at in Vegas (can’t afford Wynn yet)? 2) What is the little lotto jackpot at right now? 3) What horse or dog track is within driving distance?

It seems like the when the government can regulate (i.e. Tax) a betting institution, it has no problem allowing it to flourish. Does the government ensure that people aren’t addicted to gambling before they’re allowed to buy lotto tickets? Does the government make sure people can afford to lose before letting them double down on elevens at the blackjack table, or by taking “Santa’s little helper” in the fifth?

It seems like in these instances, Americans are given the freedom of how to spend their paychecks. If you take your money to the track or to the craps table, you know there is a substantial chance that you will be making a donation to the “house”. So why can’t you get that same freedom in front of your computer?

According to Christian Capital Advisors, the online gambling industry brings in about twenty billion dollars per year. Remember, all of those institutions are headquartered offshore (mostly Jamaica, United Kingdom, and the Bahamas). If Uncle Sam can’t get a slice of the pie, then nobody can play.

Let’s address the bigger picture. Congressman and Senators believe that gambling is dangerous, and if people can’t gamble online than perhaps they’ll turn their attention elsewhere. How can this line of reasoning work when there are so many other ways for someone to bet that are completely legal?

In 1918, the 18th amendment was ratified, which made the production and consumption of alcohol illegal. Speakeasies and smugglers flourished, and the 21st amendment conceded the fact that enforcement of prohibition was impossible. If online gambling becomes illegal, perhaps our new speakeasies will be our neighbor’s basement, where the buy in is one hundred dollars and the dealer calls the ante.

LOL (learn our language)

“Give us your tired, your poor, your huddled masses”
- Statue of Liberty

“Denos su cansado, su pobre, sus masa apiñadas”

- La estatua de la Libertad

“Дайте нам ваш утомленный, ваш голодный, вашим запиханным массам”
- Статуя Свободы

As the House and Senate work out their differences over a controversial immigration bill, the discussion begins anew of who exactly we are as a country. Are we a great American melting pot that our fifth grade social studies teacher (and SchoolHouse Rock) promised? A Sunday afternoon drive through Chicago can take you to Chinatown, little Italy, and Greektown. These neighborhoods are relics from the great era of Eurasian immigration, and some at Stevenson owe their Americanism to Lady Liberty for opening up the gate at Ellis Island.

U.S. History class taught us that massive immigration led to increased nationalism. Immigrants found the streets paved with flag waiving citizens. In 2006, a great number of Americans (including a majority of House Republicans) want immigration to come with one simple caveat: LOL. Learn Our Language.

English as the national language. Should the U.S. scrap the watered down resolution of “English as the unifying language” and make the mastery of the English language an absolute in order to gain citizenship? If so, the government would be under no obligation to provide alternative languages whatsoever. Street signs, job applications (the government is the largest employer in the nation), schools. English. English. English.

Every so often, Patriot of ’76 turns the blog over to two students. The process is simple. They write their opinions, answer some difficult questions, and you tell me what you think. Patriot of '76 isn't here to take sides, but you are. Who do you agree with, and why? Do you have any arguments on this issue that hasn’t been made?

Blogging today against English as the official language is Wonderwomen. Blue Raja disagrees with her. Here are their reasons
______________________
Wonderwoman

There are many reasons that I strongly disagree with English becoming a mandatory learned language in the United States. To begin with, the concept and the reason why America is so unique and wonderful are because it incorporates a variety of cultures and traditions. Language is a crucial part of those cultures and by taking it away, we would essentially be taking away makes our country so special. What difference does it make to a businessman in Buffalo Grove, whether or not a Hispanic Immigrant can speak English–it doesn’t! Most people that still speak their native language only interact with those who do, so it really doesn’t affect those speaking English. If anything, it just enriches our country’s culture.

A second issue raised is how does the government accommodate those that learn differently or just cannot seem to learn a language period? I have learned in Sociology that once past a certain age, I believe it’s late teens; it is almost impossible to learn a language. So, would you just only allow citizens to fewer than eighteen? But once again, it all relates back to the question of what does it matter- why would it even be relevant to the rest of our country if immigrants know English. As the world is essentially become smaller, what would it hurt to preserve the beauty of culture and language? With a McDonalds on every corner in about every country, you can’t deny that the true identity of these societies is being gradually diminished.

Blue Raja

If people want become American citizens, they should have to learn the language of the country. Making English the national language would also create more jobs and opportunities for immigrants. People always argue that immigrants, Mexicans in particularly, have awful jobs and hardly make any money. Making them learn English will increase their chances of economic prosperity. As President Bush said, “If you learn English, and you're a hard worker, and you have a dream, you have the capacity from going from picking crops to owning the store, or from sweeping office floors to being an office
manager”. The opposition may argue that America is a free country,
and we are the melting pot of the world. America is a free country, and I have nothing against immigrants bringing in their different cultures, but if they want to interact and step-up in America, they have to learn the language and not expect us to learn theirs. It’s our country and our language should be spoken. What unifies a country? Culture. What is culture made up of? Communication. Language. What represents a country? The people and language they speak in it. This is AMERICA, not Mexico, not France, not China, but AMERICA, where ENGLISH is spoken, not Spanish, not French, not Chinese, but ENGLISH.
__________

CLICK BELOW FOR THE AUDIO DEBATE!

English as the National Language?.

Party like it's 1798

Americans were sick and tired in 1798. The Federalist Party controlled both Houses of Congress, and the newly built White House on Pennsylvania Avenue. President John Adams pushed Congress to pass the Alien and Sedition laws, which was a flagrant contradiction to the First Amendment (Freedom of speech, press, assembly). The laws also made life miserable for immigrants, increasing the requirements and wait time for citizenship. Immigrants could be deported at any time without due process. The Federalists used fear of French infiltration, who was the enemy du jour, as justification for their actions.

Americans began to wonder, does the mere threat of attack warrant such a betrayal of the Spirit of 76? Didn’t our brothers and fathers die at Bunker Hill and Yorktown so we could have the ability to criticize our government? Didn’t our leaders pen a document in Philadelphia that embraced cultural diversity?

Democratic-Republicans, led by Vice President Thomas Jefferson, were up in arms. They traveled around the country, demanding an end to Federalist domination.

A vote for Democratic-Republicans is a vote for civil liberties! A vote for Democratic- Republicans is a vote for cultural freedom!

Listen to any current Democrat from Bill Clinton to John Kerry to Dan Seals. You’ll hear the same arguments.

The Federalist hit back. The Democratic Republicans are soft on national security! They can’t keep America safe! The Democratic-Republicans are weak on immigration!

Listen to any current Republican from President Bush to Vice President Cheney to Arnold Schwarzenegger. You’ll hear the same argument

Can you really tell me with a straight face that history doesn’t repeat itself?

Oh by the way, the Democratic-Republicans were unable to take Congress in 1798, although they came close. However, two years later, Thomas Jefferson began the era of Democratic-Republican domination by taking the White House while many loyal Congressmen rode his coattails. Soon thereafter, the Federalist Party disappeared.

This is good news to current Democrats if they can’t take Congress on Tuesday. The only question is, do they have a Thomas Jefferson in their ranks for 2008?