Reply #43: Intellectual dishonesty and bogus strawmen don't serve either improved comprehension or discussion.

[TahitiNut]

First, read .. http://journals.democraticunderground.com/TahitiNut/403

Then ...

1. When folks attempt to downplay the impact of the draft during the Viet Nam War, and portray the draft as insufficient popular motivation to stop the carnage, they fallaciously and imprudently ignore the major change to the draft system beginning with the first lottery drawing in December 1969 for all men subject to the draft in 1970. The draft became far more equitable - in lottery induction sequence instead of 'oldest first,' with student deferments limited to the end of the current term, and with the elimination of a plethora of other deferments. The only escape left was National Guard - which, due to call-ups, isn't quite as attractive today. Let's remember that it wasn't just the wealthy who could shield their precious kids - since tuition was MUCH lower in those days and far more guys could manage to stay in college until they were 26 ... or take a job as a teacher.

I personally regard the Kent State shootings as being precipitated in some significant part by the changed draft laws. Remember, it took place in May 1970 ... merely a month before the term (and the deferment) was up. It was a tragic irony that deferred students confronted national Guard ... both over staying out of Viet Nam. Irony. On steroids.

The current draft doesn't afford the "upper 40%" the opportunity to shield their kids. I've always been a bit suspicious whether those who opposed such "fortunate son" deferments were opposed to the inequity ... or just wanted some of that privilege for themselves. Since then, I'm convinced it's the latter. After all, the 'privileged' includes the "upper 80%" now. I guess it's OK if it's only the kids who have nearly no other option to get a college education and health care.


2. I regard it as remarkable when I read folks talking about how much they'd do IF the draft were reactivated ... and see all kinds of actions promised. Talk about contradictions. If it wouldn't be an enormous motivation for activism and civil disobedience then how are so many saying it would? Even more puzzling is that such diatribes come as a counterpoint to "I'm doing everything I can to get Cheney/Bush out of the White House." What is it? Are we doing "all we can" or would we "do more"??? If we're not doing all we can ... why aren't we? Is it at least partly because we're comfy while other people's kids carry the burden of serving (and often dying) for this mess? Shame on us!

Shame on us!

Democracy is not a spectator sport ... we're all voting ourselves "off the island."