The American Spectator : The Spectacle Blog : Serve the State

Text Size

Serve the State

By Matthew Bishop on 11.8.08 @ 1:07PM

Kudos to Greg Mankiw for catching this from the President-Elect’s transition website:

The Obama Administration will call on Americans to serve in order to meet the nation’s challenges. President-Elect Obama will expand national service programs like AmeriCorps and Peace Corps and will create a new Classroom Corps to help teachers in underserved schools, as well as a new Health Corps, Clean Energy Corps, and Veterans Corps. Obama will call on citizens of all ages to serve America, by developing a plan to require 50 hours of community service in middle school and high school and 100 hours of community service in college every year. Obama will encourage retiring Americans to serve by improving programs available for individuals over age 55, while at the same time promoting youth programs such as Youth Build and Head Start. [Italics mine]

Mankiw correctly identifies this for what it is: conscription. Putting children in the service of the government in order to teach them the virtue of sacrifice to the collective: is it just because I’m listening to Penderecki’s Threnody that I find this incredibly creepy?

UPDATE: Within a few hours of Mankiw pointing this out, Obama’s website has changed the language from to require to setting a goal. If that demonstrates anything, it’s that Obama’s rhetoric does not reflect his intent unless, like Mankiw or Joe the Plumber, you can catch him in a rare mistake.

View all comments (81) | Leave a comment Leave a comment

Amy| 11.8.08 @ 4:54PM

Isn't this the "thousand points of light" that Reagan called for? What could you possibly have against this plan? So now anything altruistic or even civic-minded is communist? I'm trying to understand the American right-wing point of view on this.

W. James Antle III | 11.8.08 @ 5:16PM

"Thousand points of light" was actually George H.W. Bush, not Reagan. It was also a reference to voluntary charity and civic involvement. Compulsory altruism isn't real altruism.

Tom Paine| 11.8.08 @ 5:26PM

Requiring young people to get up off their behinds and do a little work on behalf of the community is an idea whose time has gone.

Better to sit them down in front of television and computer screens so they can be programed to be more avid and irrational consumers.

We want these kids maxing out their credit cards early, don't forget.

We also depend upon their shallow ignorance of American history, geography, civics, and culture -- so by all means let's keep them home as much as possible.

Selfish, mean, greedy, and aggressive: that's the kind of man we want in America.

Don't let these socialists try to tell you there's something wrong with that neither because there isn't. It says so in the Bible.

malm| 11.8.08 @ 5:28PM

We already do this stuff Amy without making it a BFD. We are awash in charities and volunteer groups, and for some us charity starts at home. We do not need a Government program to help a nephew or cousin who needs a little help here or there. We just do it. It is more of a small town, slow lane, less hectic lifestyle America thing. Looking after your own and such, kind of a bitter clinger thing, and in cities it's like giving money to the salvation army guy or gal ringing the bell, and dropping of good stuff at their center so they can distribute, and they do this without a huge bureaucracy and union guys around shaking you down for dues and telling you how to vote. Then there are the churches, and synagogue and mosques they do alot of this stuff Obama inc is talking about as well. And like the vets actually have the American Legion and VFW as means to do helpful service, well it just goes on and on actually , but you probably live in an East Coast city and go to a big time college and well your education is , let us say otherwise oriented.

Matthew Bishop| 11.8.08 @ 5:51PM

Amy,

Civic-minded involvement and altruism are good, and I wouldn't call them communist. My opposition to this has nothing to do with left-wing or right-wing politics. But do you really think the government ought to force its citizens to do work without compensation? Do you really think it ought to force its citizens to work at all?

If you're opposed to a draft, you ought to be opposed to this. It makes no difference that the former involves danger and the latter tedium. Both are conscription, plain and simple.

If you're opposed to imposing your values on others, you ought to oppose this. Would you have me impose my values--religious or otherwise--on you?

Tom Paine| 11.8.08 @ 6:09PM

Mr Bishop,

You write: "If you're opposed to imposing your values on others, you ought to oppose this. Would you have me impose my values--religious or otherwise--on you?"

It sounds to me like we're talking about school children and college students here.

We impose our "values" on young people as a society all the time. Public schools insist that students conform to behavioral norms that imply ethical and moral principles.

Social conservatives are forever urging us to do even more of this sort of thing. (I agree with social conservatives on these issues, usually.)

If we teach students about civics and history, we teach values and mores. I see no reason why the state can't determine that in order to be considered an educated citizen you need to spend a few hours painting a building, planting flowers in a park, or bringing meals to old people.

If the people find these activities burdensome, they have redress -- called an election.

Ron Robinson | 11.8.08 @ 6:12PM

He hasn't made much noise about it, but he already has a 'volunteer corps' tracking comments sections like this on conservative blogs to tighten the feedback loop about what is being well-received and what is not. They make changes accordingly based on what they learn from reading pages just like this. If you go to my.change.gov, in the lower right, you will see some text that says AMERICA SERVES - two days ago, this was 2 links - one that said 'Find Ways to Serve' which led to a blank page that said 'NEEDS CONTENT'- now that link is gone. Elsewhere the site says:
Americans Not Asked to Serve After 9/11: President Bush squandered an opportunity to mobilize the American people following 9/11 when he asked Americans only to go shopping.
...but Obama is just like Bush in this sense as he is not currently interested in offering ways to serve or learning how you want to serve. Later, I'm sure the links will come back...

All this volunteer stuff will amount to is a way to indoctrinate people - mostly youngsters - to the ways of liberal governance.

If you click 'Protecting America' in the right menu about halfway down, you will find:
Barack Obama will declare the cyber infrastructure a strategic asset...

...which means he will try to regulate the content of the internet so that it, too is a 'safe zone' for liberal ideas without dissenting opinions like ours.

DJ| 11.8.08 @ 6:19PM

This sounds kind of like the Hitler Youth to me.

Getting people to reject their individuality in favor of the community is the way despots control their populations. Neighbor rats out his fellow neighbors for the "good" of the community. People without question sacrifice themselves for their communities. People toil long hours in mindless jobs for their apartment, a stale loaf of bread and of course the good of their community.

Our founding fathers understood all of this. Our constitution is designed to constrain government not enable it. We need to get behind any and all candidates that represent liberty while we still can.

George Orwell's 1984 is coming to life before our very eyes. He was just off on the date by about 30 years.

ruth| 11.8.08 @ 6:24PM

Amy, Thousand Points of Light was voluntary--not coerced. Do you understand the difference? Ron, I don't think that bloggers such as Tom Pain are voluntary. I believe Obama's thugocracy is paying them well to keep an eye on conservative dissent.

ruth| 11.8.08 @ 6:25PM

voluntary=volunteers

WendyG| 11.8.08 @ 6:32PM

Folks, the more of these cockamamie ideas Obama puts out there, the easier he'll be to rein in in 2 years, and beat in 4 years.

>>>This sounds kind of like the Hitler Youth to me.

But we have elections here every 2 years. So that helps.

ruth| 11.8.08 @ 6:40PM

Obama's moving fast; we have to keep a close eye on him.

DJ| 11.8.08 @ 6:43PM

But we have elections here every 2 years. So that helps. >>>

For now, we have to get on the stick quickly to keep it that way.

A to the F| 11.8.08 @ 7:09PM

You all are missing the point, really. Conservatives already do the whole charity thing, with many studies demonstrating a significant difference in donations in both time and money to charitable organizations. This is Obama's effort to get the Left to catch up with the Right, after all, as we all know, the Left needs the Government to tell them what to do.

Debbie| 11.8.08 @ 7:10PM

Well said Matthew Bishop. You know for the last for the last 40 or so years, folks with conservative values have been told to shut up, because we have no right to impose our values on others.
In 1973, a Woman's right to choose to have an abortion was now held as sacred, and if someone thought otherwise, they were silenced.

When the draft was done away with, Young Men
could choose whether or not to serve their country with Military Service.

There are many other things that people are choosing to do, that a generation ago, would have been really frowned on.

Do you see a pattern here? In each of the above examples is the word choose. Whether others like or approve of your choices or not, you are free to choose.

If we hold the right to choose our relationships, lifestyles, careers, how much money we want to make or not make as an important American value, then how can we agree that government has the right to force you into community service, and not only that but to tell you what community service you are going to be involved with?
Who is going to enforce this? Are you going to be denied welfare benefits, or social security benefits if you refuse? Are you going to have to report to a Government entity?

If you don't want other people to dictate what decisions you make for your life, why would you invite Government to do so?

Private citizens don't have the power to enforce consequences on you if you don't tow the line and do what they think you should do, but the Government would have that power if you gave it to them.

As far as I am concerned, this goes way beyond whether someone performs community service or not, this goes to the crux of whether you believe that Government should have the right to enforce involuntary servitude on private citizens.

James Madison| 11.8.08 @ 7:19PM

Let us not forget what Michelle Obama stated during the campaign, namely that her husband the President-elect would “require you to work” and that Obama would “move you out of our comfort zones.”

HERE IS THE EXACT QUOTE:

“Barack Obama will require you to work. He is going to demand that you shed your cynicism. That you put down your divisions. That you come out of your isolation, that you move out of your comfort zone . . . Barack will never allow you to go back to your lives as usual - uninvolved, uninformed”

DJ| 11.8.08 @ 7:22PM

HERE IS THE EXACT QUOTE:

Keep it up Barack, with every effort to steal our liberties the Libertarian movement gains momentum.

Thomas| 11.8.08 @ 7:58PM

More government intrusion into the private lives of its citizens. Your children will be REQUIRED to serve the state, for nothing, performing undisclosed tasks. This sounds relatively harmless, but as is usual with this man, it is almost devoid of details. Except for national defense in times of extreme danger, no citizen should be pressed into service to the State, regardless of age. First is mandatory government service, then you are told that there are enough lawyers in America, but sewer workers are in short supply. Get into the line on the right, please.

Amy| 11.8.08 @ 8:47PM

Ruth and Malm are quick to assume things.
"But do you really think the government ought to force its citizens to do work without compensation?"
Who said no compensation? Don't soldiers get paid? And no, I don't think it should be compulsory. I think it should be like Jury Duty, where if you have a good reason you get out of it. And you can just act crazy and get out of it. Or simply refuse and be dismissed. Actually, a No Thanks box on a reply card would be fine with me. I think there should be more options than just the Military and the Peace Corps. Classroom Corps sounds good to me.

"If you're opposed to imposing your values on others, you ought to oppose this. Would you have me impose my values--religious or otherwise--on you? "
Ah, of course I wouldn't know anything about that. I don't like it that my federal tax dollars have paid to kill civilians. I do support military if it's careful and tries very very hard not to involve the civilians. Certain technologies, like land mines, remote air strikes on villages and wedding parties. So sure, let's do this. You don't have to pay for abortions, and I don't have to pay for land mines and bomber planes. Deal?

Amy| 11.8.08 @ 8:53PM

... above should say Certain technogies are just too randomly violent, like land mines...

ruth| 11.8.08 @ 10:57PM

Amy, I just wanted to make sure you knew it was compulsory since you compared it to a voluntary program. And who said it would be compensated? Also, I'm sure you were/and would be the first to scream if we get hit by terrorists again. Then you are all about military protection. But I'm sure you are always all about abortion all of the time, right?

ruth| 11.8.08 @ 11:00PM

Amy, do you like the fact that federal tax dollars have protected your sorry butt since 9/11? You can't have an abortion if you're dead.

jla| 11.9.08 @ 12:47AM

A requirement, or order, to serve from Obama should not really surprise anyone. This is a man who stood behind a podium, in a Chicago hotel, with a sign hanging from it, *Office of the President-Elect*.
This scatterbrain is like the Little Rascal who hung a 'Doktor' [sic] sign outside the clubhouse and was now accepting patients.
Obama has significant personality disorders. I firmly believe this. A very insecure man will sit in the Oval office in several weeks.

DJ| 11.9.08 @ 7:31AM

If you are to be compensated for this "community service" work you would simply be given money that the government stole from someone else. And the money they steal from you is going to pay someone else for their "service".

I suppose one "service" you guys will have to undertake is rounding up political dissidents and Libertarians like myself. I'm warning you all now we're armed to the teeth and not going down without a fight.

DJ| 11.9.08 @ 7:36AM

ruth | 11.8.08 @ 10:00PM
Amy, do you like the fact that federal tax dollars have protected your sorry butt since 9/11? You can't have an abortion if you're dead.
>>

I don't care for it much at all, give me my money back and I can take care of myself.

I don't see how fighting Isreal's holy war for them has kept us safe.

malm| 11.9.08 @ 8:07AM

Hi Amy. let me get this straight, if I don't want myself, or my family involved I explain to them they need to act crazy, when you or some other earnest type contacts us for service ? Another words , go through a rather elaborate charade or deception to decieve my government. Ok, now I get what Obama, and the dems mean by family values; you just lie and cheat and duck your duty. Integrity does not come into the equation. Just pretend to be crazy and dodge your duty, and maybe get some welfare for your sad mental condition.Like you just pretend to be a citizen of Ohio and get to vote and vote. By George I think I've got it. I am a bit concerned about the card check thingy you mentioned. I get this notion that if I keep checking " no thanks " someday Comrade Amy will be knocking on my door, and informing me I have now been classified as a refusenik, and that will mean my vegan sausage, and go green recycled toilet paper ration have been reduced. But hey, as long as you guys realize you are in a nice political pendulum swing your direction, and don't do any serious over reaching, it will all be ok. I do get to keep my pickup truck ? I can, right ? It is a v8(not the juice). I'm okay on that ? Right ?

nick p | 11.9.08 @ 8:36AM

Yesss.. I'm afraid you're finding this creepy for the wrong reasons.
If you're a democrat, you should appreciate the broken state of america and the need for everyone to get involved.
If you're republican, surely you will simpathize with statements like "freedom ain't free" and it's the same for country, healthcare, services, security and all of that.
A nation made of leeches who do not even appreciate the service of the armed forces is doomed.
Everywhere around the world, people are having to make sacrifices.. do you want your kid to do 50 hours or do you want to... pay more taxes like in the UK? or lose 1 holiday to compensate for the bad economy in France? or lose services like it's happening in Italy?
Obama is doing the right thing...
http://www.spinwhip.com/obama

Gsmith| 11.9.08 @ 9:12AM

This is not about giving back - it is about indoctrinating our youth. And this is why:

STUDENTS ALREADY HAVE A JOB - IT IS CALLED SCHOOL!! Why is Obama talking about taking away time they may need to study? Because he thinks that his "teaching" is more important than what they learn in school. His "teaching" is more important than a "childhood" where kids have time to play after school.

Why is he not calling on all the unemployed, the homeless, and able bodied people on welfare? Shouldn't they learn about "giving back"? Because he knows that this group will not force his "teachings" on us as well overzealous youth will.

And even though 50 hours doesn't sound like much, about 1 1/2 hours a week during school, who can promise it will never be increased?

WendyG| 11.9.08 @ 9:19AM

We already pay taxes that cover most services, like roads, military, etc. And I already sacrifice. I live with and help care for my 88 year-old mother. That's on top of working 40 hours a week.

Classroom Corps? No thanks. The left-leaning public school system here is quite enough.

Amy, do you know how many soldiers died on the beaches at Normandy? How many civilians died at Hiroshima? Yet without those deaths our enemies would have prevailed. I have sickening feeling many of Obama's robots think history began in 1970.

Brown Line| 11.9.08 @ 9:23AM

Fine, students are now required to perform 100 hours, or two and a half full-time weeks of "voluntary" service. Fine. Now, who determines just what a proper outlet for that service is? Would, say, working at a pro-life crisis pregnancy center count? (Assuming any still exist once the FCA becomes law.) Or at one's local church? Or, say, organizing a seminar in free-market values at a local public school? Somehow, I doubt it. Will blatantly political work count? I assume yes, as long as the work benefits the Democratic Party.

You see, although I regard this as a bad idea, it's a relatively benign bad idea, at least in theory. In practice, though, it's clear that President Obama (always the Alinsky-ite) will use this program to politically benefit himself and his allies. Better to stop it altogether than to haggle over the details of just how many hours students will be required to stuff envelopes at Democratic Party headquarters.

Libertine| 11.9.08 @ 9:32AM

I can guarantee you this: My five kids will NOT be forced into servitude to this Marxist. No way in HELL will they 'volunteer' for Obama's new world.

Amy, you are an idiot. Once again, the women of American (a vast majority anyway) elect a socialist to add to Wilson, FDR, LBJ, Carter, and Clinton. This one is the worst of the bunch. Women have proven again and again that they are willing to sacrifice Liberty for 'security'. The Founders knew what they were doing when they denied women the vote.

weirdone | 11.9.08 @ 9:34AM

How better to promote the Cult. Calls for more Kool-Aid in the end though.

WendyG| 11.9.08 @ 9:36AM

It's also about trying to undermine more traditional and AMERICAN service and recreational activities, like Boy Scouts, Girl Scouts, church groups, sports, music lessons, etc. How will these kids manage to get it all done? Kids are already overbooked IMO.

Tom Paine| 11.9.08 @ 10:28AM

WendyG

I assure you, I do not think history began in 1970, and I am not a "robot."

You demean yourself with such name calling.

I was an life scout (didn't make eagle), I served in the US Army, and I am a teacher. I proudly voted for Obama, and it is not because he is going to undermine church groups.

Would you listen to yourself, woman?

I find it almost partially ironic that this website is featuring another thread in which people descry newspapers and other sources of news.

No wonder. You people start telling one another these stories -- like girl scouts around a campfire -- and then in order to keep it all going you have to cut off any information from the outside world.

So, you call that information and the people who bring it "liberal," which, you unthinkingly continue, means "bad, untruthful, inherently unreliable" -- or whatever,

But what information is good, truthful, reliable?

It turns out, not very much.

The blogs and right wing radio shows that never challenge your explanations or question the party line cherry pick information from the same news agencies you've just accused -- only they have no special editing skill or expertise, and simply do so based on what seems convenient the message it's already been determined you will here.

You don't like the press precisely because it has no message.

You have to put that together yourself when you read a newspaper, over time and with careful and critical thought.

This careful and critical thought is uncomfortable to you, so you are relieved when someone comes along and assures you there's no need for it. Only a dirty liberal would ask you to do such a thing.

You people comparing Obama to Hitler are bottomlessly, hopelessly, absurdly ignorant. You should be ashamed to confirm your stupidity in public. Your lack of learning is not such a shame -- the pride, the brazen pride you take in your ignorance is what is so appalling.

Jim Woodward| 11.9.08 @ 11:37AM

I'm pretty much up to speed on all of this.
I've downloaded The Communist Manifesto and made it my homepage.
A friend is going to make up some nice embroidered Obama logos for me to sew on my jackets and sweaters.
On Monday I will be contacting The U.S. Civil Service to find out when the applications come out for neighborhood, district, state and regional Commisar.
I'm thinking that if I have some decals with the logo and "Yes we can" made and put them on my guns I might be able to keep them?
Should I have the logo painted on the car roof?

Jim Woodward| 11.9.08 @ 12:09PM

Regarding my last post.
I'm sure you will all agree that my point is, that I want to have it known in my community that by God (oops) mea culpa, by Obama, I am a leader, not a follower.

Thomas| 11.9.08 @ 12:24PM

I think that some people are missing the point here, including Mr. Payne. The issue is not community service. We are all asked to provide community service from time to time. In the case of jury duty, that is an obligation made necessary by the 6th and 7th amendments to the constitution. In the case of a military draft, it is usually made necessary by a crisis making it necessary to rapidly raise a large number of men to defend the country from external aggression. It can be a character building experience as well, but the PEOPLE of this country decided that they wished to restrict military service to volunteers, except in times of great need.

The point of a Federal requirement for "community service " of minors without any further stipulations is of great concern.

First, this abrogates the rights and responsibilities of a child's parents.

Second, there has been no indication of how, and by whom, this would be administered.

Third, there is, as yet, no indication that a child's parents can opt out of such a program.

Fourth, this is indicative of the mindset of this man. You are not being asked to ask "what you can do for your country." a la JFK. But, rather you are being TOLD what you WILL do for your country. This should be a danger signal for anyone in a free society.

WendyG| 11.9.08 @ 12:32PM

>>I was an life scout (didn't make eagle), I served in the US Army, and I am a teacher. I proudly voted for Obama, and it is not because he is going to undermine church groups.

********
I'd certainly like to know why you DID vote for him. I think he's already shown, in his boorish press conference (when he made a "joke" about Nancy Reagan - an 87 year old woman who just broke her hip) that off script he's pretty lame. He's lame - his ideology is scary.

Do you deny the MSM is bias to the left? The WA. Post just admitted they are. Let's take a nationwide survey of who members of the MSM voted for, shall we. Chris Matthews has already announced that he considers it his job to make the Obama Presidency work. Did he say the same about Reagan - or GWB?

And I might add that is was in great part the complicity of the German press that paved the way for the Third Reich. By whipping up the masses, by delivering Hitler's message. Of course I not saying Obama is Hitler, I am pointing out the dangers of a press that stops doing it's job, but instead becomes cheerleader to the Dear Leader.

So have at it. Tell me why you voted for Obama.

Tom Paine| 11.9.08 @ 2:24PM

Thomas --

Since you offer concerns that are rational, I will try to respond to you.

First of all, this community service idea has been kicking around since I was a teenager, in the late eighties and early nineties.

It was ushered in to public discourse by conservatively minded people who feared that civic mindedness and an appreciation for community were drastically declining among young people.

It did NOT originate with Obama.

Obama is probably more socially conservative than many of you people imagine. Either way, like many post-boomers, he's a lot more amenable to socially conservative ideas like this one, and clearly he is interested in looking into it.

No one knows who would administer such a program becaus it's now just an idea kicking around and available for public comment.

And so here's my comment:

In an age in which the draft does not require service, young people grow up feeling like the world is just a big supermarket market -- nothing but a bunch of stuff to buy on credit and consume.

They are unaware of sacrifice or service. Obviously they don't appreciate vets -- or teachers, or policemen, or fireman, or indeed anyone else who serves others at risk to himself -- because all they've done their whole lives is play video games and sit on their fat little behinds while their dimwitted parents ignored them.

This does not form honest, hardworking, reliable, strong citizens. (If you don't believe me, read
Aristotle and Plato.)

If the government, in program mediated by schools and other community organizations, and in conjunction with religiously affiliations, were to adopt a program in which young people were to be required for school credit to serve the community in some reasonable way, what really is the problem with that?

I think you people are frightened of civic minded youngsters who learn how good it feels to work on behalf of someone else and give back to a community that has provided them with so much.

Paulrevere| 11.9.08 @ 2:29PM

BHO is a one term president. Two years from now the mislead, uninformed masses that voted for BHO will be disappointed and will vote out the democrats in Congress. In the mean time we should treat BHO & Biden with the same respect, courtesy and consideration that Bush-Cheney received from the democrats and MSM over the previous eight years.

WendyG| 11.9.08 @ 2:32PM

A better way is to offer tax credits to families whose family members volunteer for community service.

DJ| 11.9.08 @ 2:59PM

Because in a free society you are required to do NOTHING for the state. You may volunteer to do so but that's it.

Even the Military draft is a violation of rights.

Tom Paine| 11.9.08 @ 3:12PM

Wendy and DJ --

Obviously failure to comply with community service would not be criminal.

That's why I modified the requirement with the phrase "for school credit," like taking mathematics.

We "require" many things of young people in the process of educating them. Community service is a proper, traditional, and perfectly reasonable thing to require of young people who have not yet reached the age when they have full liberty.

Schools and other organizations act "in place of" or "in absence of" parents routinely. These include church groups and scouting groups, but they also include the schools.

I think what is at stake here is not at all your fears that young people rights would be somehow infringed.

Rather, I think that much in the conservative "movement" (unlike traditional conservatism) is invested in selfishness and fragmented communities.

Using community service as a means of educating young people what it means to be a citizen threatens something essential in the ideology to which you adhere, an ideology that is suspicious, angry, intolerant, and literally uncivil -- that is, not respectful of the public sphere or the spirit or civic engagement.

Thomas| 11.9.08 @ 4:02PM

Mr. Paine,

We will never agree on this matter. I believe that Americans will provide community service voluntarily when necessary. People do it all of the time, in this country. They do it through charities, churches, civic associations and through military and other public service.

You, on the other hand seem to believe that the only way community service gets done if it is mandated by the State. You apparently live in a portion of the country where selfishness is a virtue, where no one helps another without monetary gain, where human kindness has to be legislated. If I was you, I would move to a more hospitable local. One where people are largely self-sufficient. Where they do not have a plethora of problems that have to be addressed with free child labor. Where children learn about charity, community and responsibility from their families and friends.

As to children growing up to in a draftless era not knowing about sacrifice, I bow to your wisdom. Let us re-instate the draft. Mandatory military service for everyone from age 18-21. Then they can go to college or to work having a sense of sacrifice and service. Get the little darlings off their behinds and serving their country as young men have served their countries since the time of the ancient Greeks. I am all for that. Military service instills a true feeling for what it costs to be a citizen of a free country. No sitting at home talking on your cell phone, watching Oprah or Judge Judy and waiting for your welfare check. Spend a week in the field; cold chow, rain, snow, chiggers, humping a 70 pound field pack up and down hills. Builds a real respect for hot food, warm quarters and peace. And what it costs to protect our liberty.

So I'm with you pal. Let's leave the kids in school and send them into the military at age 18. No Columbia, no Harvard; not until you have done your time in the military. I applaud you for having the courage to call for the reinstatement of a military draft in this country.

Now, how much chance do think there is of that happening? Not from Mssr. Obama or any of the Democrat leadership of this country. Why? Because they want to reduce, or eliminate, the military, not expand it. They want to gut the very institution that protects the People of this country from the barbarians at the gates.

My point, though, is that, except for certain of our leaders, the People do not wish to be coerced into service. If it is required, it means less than if it is freely given. If it is required, it sends the message that the People are too selfish and stupid to know when sacrifice has to be made. And if they are that stupid, then they probably shouldn't be allowed to vote. Should they? In a free society, no law abiding citizen should ever be forced to serve the State. Especially not children.

Later we can debate why Mssr. Obama wishes children to perform community service.

Crusader| 11.9.08 @ 4:21PM

www.change.gov has already changed in the last 24-48 hours. Yesterday morning when you clicked "agenda" you got a whole ton of choices outlining even more gubmint-run programs probably adding up into the trillions of dollars. Late yesterday afternoon when you click "agenda" you get a little paragraph or two of BS.

Yeah, "Office of the President-Elect." I mean, narcisitic personality disorder anyone? Is there such a thing as office of the president elect?

Reading the lib responses on to these blogs actually saddens and scares me. Saddens me to think people are really that stupid, and scares me for the same reasons. There is no rhyme or reason to lib thinking, because libs don't think, they FEEL. It makes them FEEL good to elect a black guy, so they vote OBH without even thinking why they are doing it. They just want to be a part of HISTORY, by electing the first black guy to the office of the president elect. By the way, his mama was White wasn't she? I mean his WHITE grandparents raised him right? Why does he deny his Whiteness and focus on only one half of his heritage? Oh because there is no such thing as a White race card.

Tom Paine| 11.9.08 @ 4:40PM

Thomas --

I admit that the average liberal is not eager to see a return of the military draft.

However, some of us are fine with the idea. And the only proponent in Congress for the draft that I can think of is Rep. Rangel -- the very liberal congressman from New York.

Rangel has repeatedly proposed reinstating the draft to the howls and moans of Republicans who fear a decline in American's thirst for war and retribution when anyone's son might be sent.

I'd say what many Democrats and Republicans are now saying: the military should be far and away a fulfillment (obviously) of public service. However, to those not inclined to be in the military, I see no reason why tutoring disadvantaged children, bringing meals to the sick, or doing landscaping work in a town park should not be a part of a young person becoming a citizen.

Nothing is stopping free adults such as yourselves from giving to charity or volunteering in community service groups.

The issue is whether children or young adults should be required to as a condition of their education as citizens. Frankly, I don't see a problem with it -- whether it comes before Columbia and Harvard or after.

I further think (touching this last remark) that throwing the sons and daughters of men that went to Harvard with those who lay bricks or or who went to a community college into some common cause would do this country a world of good.

In the past three decades incredible disparities in wealth have begun to tear at the fabric of our society. The insane vitriol in the political sphere ultimately derives from the insecurities and humiliations that come from immense wealth disparity and concomitant class expectations.

One of the great things about the draft of the 40s-70s is that people of many backgrounds worked together for their country. It gave us a common experience and language of American-ness. Now all we have is Sarah Palin telling people like me I'm not a "real" American and I don't live in "real" America. How patriotic that made me feel.

In sum: public service teaches the young the value of citizenship and gives them common cause with one another as they begin their adult lives. Some will go on to become rich, some poor, some Democrats, some Republicans -- but a brief, reasonably weighted civic duty in common will contribute to our ability to once again regard one another as fellow countrymen. Perhaps it will avoid the kind of deranged and paranoiac suspicions and accusations you find everywhere on this site.

Tom Paine| 11.9.08 @ 4:46PM

And before your heads explode over the "becoming a citizen" remark, OBVIOUSLY I don't mean that a person wouldn't be an actual citizen if he did not complete community service.

I was merely talking in the pedagogical shorthand that sees education as crucial to the development of a strong citizenry.

A good citizen -- a citizen that it is in the interests of the polity to cultivate -- is a citizen who understands and appreciates the importance of serving the community.

That's all I meant.

Now, fire away.

WendyG| 11.9.08 @ 4:49PM

I still have not gotten an answer as to why Tom Paine voted for Obama. Ireally have yet to get an answer to that question from any of my friends who voted for him - an answer that means something. And "change" and "hope" don't cut it. Every election represents "change." Even when administrations win reelection, there is "change."

I don't see much change from business as usual so far, what with Obama kicking reporters from newsies who didn't support him off his plane, and refusing to take questions from Fox News at his presser. Heck, that's very old stuff - a la Nixon's "enemies list." If Ronald Reagan could spar for 8 years with Helen Thomas, surely someone with Obama's supposed intellectual heft can spar with a Fox News reporter.

If what is meant by change is a black President, we can all agree it's a wonderful thing that a black (he's really mulato but nevermind) man can be elected President. I certainly hope this also means that the next black Republican to rise to a position of power (such as Clarence Thomas) is not savaged by the libs and the press. Now that - would be change!

The hope thing is fine - we are certainly all tired of feeling down in the mouth, but arguably the press is at fault for that too. Maybe if the press didn't attack Bush constantly, if the good news from Iraq has been reported occasionally, we'd all feel more "hopeful" overall.

Back to the topic of this thread, schools are the last institutions that should be collaborating with the govt. to "require" our kids serve the state. If you want to know why Prop 8 won in CA, I can tell you that the pro-Prop folks brilliantly expolited the appalling fact that if Prop 8 had passed, schools would have taught gay marriage, and most stunningly, parents would not have been allowed to remove their kids from the classes. Imagine that! In addition, a school teacher in SF recently took her class to a gay wedding - a "teachable moment" it was called. And these were young kids! 10 and 11 year-old! So blacks, whites, Latinos etc. in CA said NO WAY. When schools get back to teaching, and stop using classrooms to propagandize kids for the left, maybe they could be trusted. But not now.

the-gunslinger | 11.9.08 @ 5:04PM

Libertine said:
"Amy, you are an idiot. Once again, the women of American (a vast majority anyway) elect a socialist...Women have proven again and again that they are willing to sacrifice Liberty for 'security'. The Founders knew what they were doing when they denied women the vote."

As a woman, I really, really want to disagree. But I find I can't. Women (voters) who value "feeling" over "thinking" are a distinct danger to the nation.

Watching idiots fainting at Obama's rock concerts was humiliating for the rest of us.

the-gunslinger | 11.9.08 @ 5:08PM

Paulrevere said:
"BHO is a one term president. Two years from now the mislead, uninformed masses that voted for BHO will be disappointed and will vote out the democrats in Congress."

Unfortunately, most of the seats up for re-election in 2010 are held by Republicans. It can't get much better...but it sure can get worse.

Thomas| 11.9.08 @ 5:30PM

Mr. Paine,

As I said, we will never agree upon this matter. The point is not now, nor was it ever, about community service. It is about COMPULSORY service to the State. If I may be so bold, I would venture to say that most of the posters to this thread have no problem with people performing "community service". What they object to is the government making it mandatory.

As to your flowery prose "the military should be far and away a fulfillment (obviously) of public service. However, to those not inclined to be in the military, I see no reason why tutoring disadvantaged children, bringing meals to the sick, or doing landscaping work in a town park should not be a part of a young person becoming a citizen." Are you serious?

In the first place, military service is nothing like tutoring disadvantaged children, bringing meals to the sick and elderly or doing landscaping work in the park. It is about death, destruction, hardship, and loss. It is about doing and seeing things that you spend the rest of your life trying to forget. Why? To protect the people and the country that you love. It is not gamboling through the park trimming rose bushes. It is about turning that park and the neighborhood around it into a wasteland. Why? So that when you gambol through your park, your parents' neighborhood won't look the same way. Military service breeds control, courtesy, compassion and tolerance for others. For the results of a lack of those qualities leads to the wasteland. And none of us wishes to go back there. It also builds a longing for and an appreciation for peace. And the sure knowledge that peace is maintained only through constant vigilance and the willingness to meet violence with violence. I am sorry son, but you do not understand war. War is horrible. It is something that only the insane long for. But, it is sometimes necessary. Because there are people that just will not take no or stop for an answer. It is because there are people who live to impose their will upon others. And they will use any means necessary to achieve dominance. Their idea of "community service" is handing a 12 year old a rifle to shoot someone with. Or strapping a bomb onto a young woman and having her blow up an elementary school. You do not stop that by taking soup to the sick. But, for those who have seen it, or heard about it from one who was there, it is stimulus enough to stand up and put their life on the line to give those at home a chance to live in a land where they can freely choose to spend their time taking soup to the sick or even discussing the merits of such a course of action. Please, do not ever diminish the men and women who voluntarily sacrifice more than their mere lives to protect our way of life.

By the way, how many people, who now supply the services you describe, are going to lose their jobs when the free high school labor takes over their responsibilities? I have it. Maybe they could join the military. What do you think?

Tom Paine| 11.9.08 @ 6:25PM

Thomas --

First, I think you misunderstand the nature of "community service." It is not service to the "State." In a democracy, the "State" is not somehow divorced from the community or the people.

Second, I was in the military, although I never saw combat. I understand the nature of military service and it's rewards. However, I do not think that everyone is cut out for military service, nor do I think that in a military increasingly relying on extremely sophisticated technical skills there is necessarily room to accommodate many people that might be forced to serve because of a draft.

I do think a draft would serve the very, very useful function of making our leaders -- people who genuinely do NOT understand what war means -- think twice before attacking, invading, and occupying a country on the other side of the planet.

And I am NOT equating a kid planting shrubs in a park to someone serving in the military. In fact, this is precisely my point: community service (which would obviously not be required of someone who has served in the military) could include a very flexible, reasonable range of activities.

These activities would be designed simply to instill a respect and an understanding of the concept of community service. It would be pedagogical in nature -- not instrumental. That is, planting flowers in the park would not be the goal of such a program. Giving a kid the experience of a few hours on Saturday mornings for a year being devoted to the betterment of his community would be the idea.

It's not a major infringement on anyone's liberty, and it seems to me perfectly reasonable for increasing young people's civic involvement.

I would hope such a program would be carried out by a RANGE of organizations, not some civilian corps. That's usually the way people have talked about these ideas. That is, one young person may work with mentally challenged children at his Catholic school, another may join a reforestation project.

Again -- what's the problem with any of this?

Loss of jobs?

I think we've come a long way from worrying about the civil rights of 17 year olds, at least.

If anything, young people would be gaining experience working and learning personal discipline and the value of contributing to society, making them better candidates for jobs.

Is a kid bringing meals to sick people really taking someone's job away? Whose? Sister Mary O'Hollihan, the last known person on earth to give a damn whether the sick people in her neighborhood ever have a hot meal?

Thomas| 11.9.08 @ 6:59PM

See? Your last paragraph, "Is a kid bringing meals to sick people really taking someone's job away? Whose? Sister Mary O'Hollihan, the last known person on earth to give a damn whether the sick people in her neighborhood ever have a hot meal?" illustrates my point precisely. You need to move someplace where people care. These places are found in most of the country. Living in a place of selfish indifference to others is giving you a warped view of America. And, I hate to burst your bubble, but you can't force people to care. Good luck trying.

Matthew Bishop| 11.9.08 @ 7:26PM

Thomas Paine,

I have read your points and appreciate that they were respectfully and thoughtfully submitted. I, too, am a veteran, and I, too, want to see Americans giving back to their communities.

But ultimately the other Thomas has made the correct point: this isn't about community service, it's about, in his words, compulsory service to the state. That said service would be performed at the local level makes no difference--the proposed requirement would be a federal one. This would be service to the state.

I believe your words demonstrate our point the best. You said, "It's not a major infringement on anyone's liberty, and it seems to me perfectly reasonable for increasing young people's civic involvement."

There really is no such thing as a minor infringement on anyone's liberty, sir. We're not talking about 50-100 hours of picking up garbage. We're talking about government telling its citizens how they will spend their time. That is no minor thing.

I understand the appeal of this program to you, who feels like it would be good for the youth. But there are many policies that would be good for our youth that we would nonetheless be very wrong to undertake. The ends do not justify the means, particularly when the ends are some vague goal of learning the value of sacrifice and the means is state mandated servitude.

Tom Paine| 11.9.08 @ 8:26PM

Mr Bishop,

I appreciate your comments and have enjoyed sparring with Thomas, whose points are well taken as well.

I have stuck with this debate because it does go to a few important philosophical issues in an interesting way.

1. High school students and college students would raise different issues. High school students are children and do not have the same expectations of full liberty. "Minor" infringements on the liberty of teenagers are not only permissible, they're essential to their proper and healthy development. Undergraduates in college are often constrained for the purposes of their education. I think requiring some kind of public service is not different in kind than any other requirement we might make of them. We require students to take civics in part to make them better citizens. Requiring them to do something that benefits their community does not seem completely different.

2. If the federal mandate were funded fully and the power to direct, control, design, and govern the program were kept at a state or municipal level, the program would be better off. I'm not exactly sure what Obama is proposing: I doubt it's the sort of regimented statist organization people around here are dreading. It sounded to me more like an educational requirement -- just like requirements we have that students take a certain amount of math or history. Anything else would probably not sit well with me personally.

3. Plato says the laws are there to teach the good. Government teaches the good in many ways, and it's responsibilities are greater with respect to people who are not yet fully adults. Families (as Obama tirelessly points out, I might add) and parents especially have the primary responsibility in shaping and guiding young people. Churches and other institutions like them have a role. I would argue that the government can play some role in this as well, and I don't see it conflicting with any of its traditional roles or functions. Jefferson strongly advocated for public free education as the basis for a democracy. I would argue that a reasonable, well-designed, and flexible community service program could be an important part of that education.

ruth| 11.9.08 @ 8:59PM

Studies show that conservatives are far more generous with their time, treasure and labor than liberals. It's not the service that's the problem--it's COMPULSORY that we object to. I have volunteered all of my life; through my church, schools and community. I do this willingly because of my strong faith in Christ, not government coercian.

Tom Paine| 11.9.08 @ 9:10PM

One last thing....

I don't think it's fair to characterize something like "community service," especially if it were accorded the status of an educational requirement, as "service to the state," which has an ominous ring to it indeed.

In this country, we don't serve a "state." In fact, I can't imagine a circumstance in the English speaking world where such a locution would be really accurate. We sometimes say that a person is "employed by the state," but in that instance we're talking about an actual state government -- not the more numinous "state" of the phrase under dispute in this my final posting of the evening.

I realize it's a rhetorical trick -- attempting to make anything our government might try to do to make our communities safer and stronger seem like a tyrannical usurpation of our liberties along the lines of something that might happen in N. Korea.

So long as we all understand that phrase's status as political hyperbole, I guess I'll rest content and wish you all a relaxing remainder to your weekend.

Conservatives often preach to us about their endless, tireless, pure, eternal love of country, and they are outraged to frothing extremities of indignant hatred if we -- say -- decline to wear a flag pin or advocate for a person's right to say unpatriotic things.

Yet when it comes to actually doing something on behalf of that which constitutes our country -- building our roads, bridges, schools, healing our sick, laying our track, anything that cannot be done by individuals or private concerns -- then all we hear back is that either someone's liberties are being denied or someone's tax money is being wasted.

Sirs, our country IS in large measure our bridges, trains, schools, roads and so on. We maintain these things by -- yes -- collective effort, taking more from those who have more, and less from those who have less. It may well be too that governments at different levels may well reward participation in this 'nation building' (long neglected in the States though carried out at length in Arabia) on the part of young people with school credit or school loans. And it seems right that they should.

Robin| 11.9.08 @ 9:23PM

Folks, this information has BEEN on Obama's website for at least several months prior to the election -- right along with his "plan" to have a CIVILIAN PARA-MILITARY FORCE that is, get this, "as well funded as our existing military forces." Check his website if you don't believe me (unless they've also removed or drastically modified that in the last few days or weeks also -- and if that's the case, just google Obama and para-military and you can find audio and/or video of him making this statement himself).

The big question is how this could now be a surprise to so many, and why it wasn't discussed in great detail BEFORE the election. Frankly, the very concept is so anti-American, anti-American constitution, that it is hard to understand how so many let themselves fall into this without bothering to educate themselves on some of the very basics that Obama stands for.

Why our national media was so pro-Obama and anti-anyone else -- and yet there wasn't any significant public uproar about it.

It is our civic duty to vote, but it is clearly also our civic duty to do so ONLY AFTER doing some basic due diligence of our own and being certain that we understand what and who it is we are voting for.

This is NOT supposed to be a popularity contest, and yet that is what it has been turned into and what the national mainstream media perpetrates. How many gazillion stories have we seen pre-election about what the polls are showing? How many stories were there that actually dug into each candidates websites and speeches, and then showed us where each actually stood on ISSUES??? Very very few of the latter. At best we got "here's what was said today" without any attempt to speak of to put things into historical context or to compare to past statements by the candidates on that same issue. The media took the very lazy way out and skipped any actual investigative journalizm.

We are supposed to be voting for the person who has the best judgement and character to run our nation and be commander in chief. The best values and morals. The best judgment and I-N-T-E-G-R-I-T-Y.

NOT simply the person who has the best oratory style or voice, or the best personality. Or who lures crowds with free rock concerts, food, and drink, so folks have a fun afternoon and evening.

Hope and change are utterly meaningless or far worse, unless people bother to determine just what the proposed changes actually ARE.

Having people vote who are unwilling to take these basic steps, who are unwilling to even bother to find out how to register themselves but are happy to register via such a corrupt organization as ACORN, simply serve to degrade our nation and our system of government. Let's not just make it easy to register, but easy to LEARN what each candidate is actually proposing, what their history and pattern of behavior and voting (if available) say about their judgment and intentions.

Anyone who hasn't bothered to look into these sorts of issues for all of the candidates in a race simply ought to do their civic duty and abstain from voting for that particular race.

Worse yet, why does the world's superpower have elections where voters don't even have to prove their citizenship or show a simple photo ID, to ensure that there isn't massive voter fraud occurring? Its scandalous. In Iraq's first election, voters had to at least dip their fingers in indelible ink -- so they weren't able to vote multiple times in multiple places. We don't even have a system to protect from that problem!

Frankly, I believe that if we corrected some of these problems, we would wind up with far greater voter turn out because people would feel its more likely their vote actually counts for something.

Who was it, Thomas Jefferson, who said something along the lines that once the majority realize that they can simply vote themselves more money, then the Republic is done for.

As it stands now, something like a full third of the ACORN 1.3 million registrations are thought to be fraudulent. How many dead voters voted this election? Multiple counties in several states, perhaps even a full state, I'm not certain -- but at least multiple counties in several different swing states had more registered voters than their actual total county population. For this to occur and not be rectified and voters verified as to basic qualifications to vote, or at the very least required to do a provisional ballot until verified in our great nation is just absurd, an outright travesty that we all should be ashamed of.

It is a disgrace that so many today first believe that the government exists to take care of the people. Where is our vaunted educational institutions that they turn out folks who have this grossly mistaken understanding of our system?

Our constitution was created NOT to take care of us, but to severely limit our government such that the government couldn't become a huge drain and leech on our very society, freedoms, civil liberties, and a brake on our individual pursuit of happiness. The New Deal put a major dent in our basic concept of governance, and like almost any government program no matter how vehement initial promises of being 'temporary' measures only during a crisis situation, once a government program and related bureaucracy is in place, its almost impossible to get rid of. As a result we have been slowly spiraling into a purely socialistic type of government. We're still living the "New Deal" and now we're about to get the "New New Deal."

We already work a full third of the year just to pay for our grossly bloated government -- a government that has yet to run any program in the black. This OUGHT to horrify the majority in the USA. Yet most seem to just shrug their shoulders and cave: "Well, that's the way it is, what can we do about it?" We can check out a candidates positions and educate ourselves BEFORE the election, and then vote for those who seem to understand that our constitution is in place to limit government. And if those we vote in, thinking they'll adhere to these basic precepts turns out to instead grow government, then we have to vote them OUT the very next election and go for the next person who seems to understand AND has some history to imply that they're not just great at rhetoric that sounds good, sounds promising.

Socialism or even major socialized programs hasn't worked well in any nation its been tried in yet. Look at the fiasco in both British and Canadian health care. It doesn't work. You can wait for months for even basic cancer treatment, dying before your turn comes up.

In the meantime, our schools are indoctrinating our children into believing the liberal fallacies and pseudo-science of all sorts rather than teaching them what science really consists of, HOW to read and study skeptically, such that they can determine the difference between populist pseudo-science and real scientific facts and theories.

So they at least understand the founding of our country and what our constitution is all about. After all, its that basis that has allowed us to become what we are -- one of the nations with the very highest standard of living, even for the poorest among us, and the last superpower. It would be beyond words to squander what we have been given and what so many have given their very lives creating and protecting for us.

Robin

Tom Paine| 11.9.08 @ 9:43PM

Robin --

That business about the Civilian Para military Force sounds pretty fishy to me. I have not been able to find it anywhere on Obama's website. It just doesn't sound like something for which he would advocate and frankly, I need more evidence than your say so.

As for the programs described in the piece above, they're pretty middle of the road. Republicans and Democrats have been sponsoring these sorts of programs for young people for decades. Even including Ronald Reagan.

You mention this country being a superpower a few times.

You understand that our superpower status began after our instituting the income tax and largely as a result of the New Deal and our military expansion during the war.

We could be an agrarian third world country run entirely by local town hall meetings. But we're not. We want SUVs and oil from the other side of the globe; we want wars in SE Asia, Iraq, and God knows where else; we want quite a bit to turn to the ideals of the yeomanry of the late 18th century.

Our Constitution has all the while been followed. Our laws are tested in courts. Our people are consulted in regular elections. Our government is divided into different but coequal branches. The government truly is of the people, by the people and for the people, and ACORN does not make a damn bit of difference.

ruth| 11.9.08 @ 10:45PM

TP, are you on Obama's payroll? Because if so he should give you a raise. You are such a very good employee. Employee of the month doesn't begin to describe your devotion to your employer.

littleflower| 11.9.08 @ 11:19PM

For those who would like to hear Mr. Obama talk about his plans for a Civilian National Security Force, can hear him do so at You Tube.

Type in the You Tube Search Engine Obama's Civilian National Security Force. Watch the video put on-line by JCJ77. This one shows Mr. Obama's full speech.

In my opinion it was quite telling about where His vision for our country is headed, however watch and draw your own conclusions

ruth| 11.9.08 @ 11:34PM

Oh, come on. We all know what Obama is about. He's a Marxist! What do Marxists do? They consolidate power--exactly what he is already proposing. Obama toadies like Tom Paine are blowing smoke, they are probably on his payroll--as minders. Remember Bagdad Bob?

Robin| 11.9.08 @ 11:39PM

Tom,

I told you how you could quite easily verify Obama's comments regarding a "civilian military force" yourself. Since you prefer to believe your own assumptions rather than verify yourself, I simply googled Obama civilian military (no quotes or anything). So, hear it yourself straight from the horses' mouth:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gwaAVJITx1Y&feature=related

and then perhaps tell us why you would toss it off as "fishy" without bothering to make the slightest attempt to check your assumptions and the reading of your own wishes into what Obama will or won't advocate.

If its NOT on his website now, it WAS, and he has talked about it more than once. You'll have to check cached versions of his website if its not there now -- it was several months ago and if not there now I can only assume that it has been removed because it it would quite rightly be viewed with great concern were it generally recognized before the election.

You ARE right that its fishy. Rotten fish and frankly it stinks. Not for the reason you imply (e.g., that it doesn't sound like something Obama would advocate), but because the fact is that he not only advocates it, but has stated that he intends to implement it and yet its gotten almost no media or apparently general public scrutiny.

He has stated intent to grossly reduce our military budget, eliminate missile defense systems, and yet double americorps, peace corps, and create all sorts of other "corps" in the US along with this god knows what it is 'civilian para-military force' that is to be every bit as well funded as our entire military.

Our superpower status is hardly a result of the New Deal, income tax and military expansion during the war -- by the way, just which war are you referring to here? While those things arguably had some effect, it is our capitalistic limited government system that has allowed entrepreneurship and resulting huge creation of wealth by and for our citizens that has allowed us to even HAVE that military might and develop ourselves as a world leader.

Furthermore, as a nation we both historically and currently donate more to other nations per capita than any other nation. A testament to our generosity and consideration for those who are less fortunate or beset by natural disasters. Now, if you simply look at FEDERAL aid to other nations, one might claim we are 'stingy.' When you consider ALL donations, however, its a strikingly different picture and one that frankly is quite contrary to the picture you have been repeatedly painting here.

As far as agrarian -- you might want to check the data on just how agrarian we actually are and how much bulk food we produce and export.

Regarding our desire for "oil from the other side of the globe" -- well, excuse me, but personally I'd a LOT rather that we develop our own oil, of which we have plenty. Its NOT that we don't have it, its that the government has put off limits what we do have, even tho the technology available for a decade or more has allowed us to quite safely access and develop our own resources in this regard. We have CAPPED PRODUCING OFFSHORE wells because of nothing more than unsupported and unreasonable fears and/or some who think that its somehow better to try to force us into using sources that simply aren't technologically and practically feasible yet.

How many have fallen for the Democratic Party and Liberal and 'Green/Environmentalist' arguement that "Americans use 25% of the world's oil annually, and we only have 3% of the worlds oil resources, therefore we can't drill our way out of the problem?" *I* even fell for that one until a few facts got in the way and the truth suddenly dawned on me -- we may have only 3% of the worlds resources, but those resources are more than enough to supply us with however much oil we need for over 100 years. That's not only at our current rate of consumption, but includes projected consumption rates. Facts that you can find yourself without too much difficulty also. This isn't even considering the huge resources Canada has, or that are available in the arctic.

Regarding our desire for SUV's -- would you like to tell me what is wrong with that? If you have several children, should they all be jammed into a sub-compact, even if that's grossly unsafe? If you have a job or hobby that means you need the space in your vehicle, should our government be able to force us to abandon those endeavors and buy a sub-compact instead because it gets better gas mileage, regardless of the fact that we can't do what we need or want to do as a result?

As to ACORN -- if it doesn't matter, why is it under federal investigation in something like 13 to 15 states? It is a non-profit that gets a LOT of taxpayer dollars. At the very least, its a gross misappropriation of tax dollars. You and everyone else have got to remember that government funding is NOT somehow 'free money.' It comes from taxes that have all of us working more than one third of each year to pay. ACORN has clearly perpetrated gross misuse of tax dollars, and that's a federal crime. ACORN is subverting our very electoral process. Not all by itself, I'm NOT saying they are the only ones to blame, but they are by far the largest and most egregious abuse. Are you aware that it turns out there was over a million dollars embezzled from ACORN, and they failed to follow the law and report it? The last a minor issue compared to the rest and the massive amounts of tax dollars used in grossly fraudulent ways by ACORN, but just one more bit of evidence of the corruption of that organization. Are you aware that in multiple states they have purposely hired felons and criminals in half-way houses to go out and collect public information -- some of which have been those convicted of identity theft and who have committed identity theft from voter registrations they've collected? That Obama gave over $800 Million to them to get out the vote for him??!! And they're supposedly a non-partisan non-profit organization which takes a lot of tax dollars from federal and/or state governments. You think this doesn't matter in our elections? On what basis??

Meanwhile, why did Obama remove ALL of the credit card safety checks for his 'small donor by private citizen' donations? Are you aware that Adolph Hitler donated to Obama's campaign as a result? That ANYONE, foreign nationals, Soros, Buffet, whoever, could have quite easily paid someone to sit down and make 'small' donation after small donation each under different made up names, adding up to very large amounts, and it wouldn't be caught or stopped by Obama. That Obama's aunt has been living in public subsidized housing for the last 5 years, in violation of the deportation order 4 years ago and the fact that only citizens are allowed to live in subsidized housing? That she donated $260 some odd to Obama, which he ONLY decided to refund after it became public knowledge that she was in the country illegally? Worse, that he refuses to release his database which lists the names of those who made the small donations. McCain has released his database, and yes, it has some errors on it too although a very small percentage of the total. Meanwhile, Adolph Hitler was NOT able to donate through McCain's system, and Hillary Clinton required overseas donators to fax a passport to verify that they were US Citizens before accepting overseas donations -- Obama did NOT. Effectively, anyone anywhere in the world, US citizen or not, could donate to Obama's campaign in almost any amount. But that's just fine and dandy with Obama, they purposely removed the credit card security checks to allow it.

Aside from ACORN, are you saying that our current electoral system, which in most states does not require any check of citizenship or any photo ID at the voting booth is just fine and isn't any problem? How can you possibly justify a stance of that nature?

The entire point of this article and the following discussion has been that according to our constitution, the government does NOT have the right to mandate service and meddle in our lives this way, with the exception of military service necessary to protect our nation from attack by other nations or external entities. You say our constitution has been followed, and I beg to differ. It has been 'reinterpreted' quite liberally and grossly away from the original intent of a severely limited government. You really need to relearn a bit of your history in this regard.

Robin

Tom Paine| 11.9.08 @ 11:55PM

Robin --

Whatever it is you do to maintain your energy and all around aplomb, I wish I knew what it was.

You say many interesting things here.

I'll just respond to the business about ACORN.

1. ACORN is required by law to submit all registration cards. They voluntarily flag any that seem suspicious and have received public recognition from law enforcement throughout the country for working to prevent registration malfeasance.

2. Registration malfeasance is not a good thing for the Democratic party or for ACORN, and both organizations work to stop it. Democrats do better when more people register, and phony registrations gum up the works. They also discredit ACORN, which as you correctly point out depends upon donations that will stop coming if they're not doing what they claim to be doing.

3. New registrants are so far and away likely to be Democrats that there is literally no conceivable, possible motive for any organized attempt to make phony registrations.

4. The source of phony registrations is very simple. People who earn very little doing a part time gig submit them so they can get paid a little more. It is a crime. It does need to be looked into.

5. However. Registration malfeasance is NOT voter fraud. These are two completely different animals. If Donald Duck registers to vote, it does not matter to the integrity of the election if Donald Duck does not show up to vote -- which of course he never does. Donald Duck, you won't be surprised to learn, doesn't exist.

Registration malfeasance is to voter fraud what shoplifting is to armed robbery. They're just not remotely in the same league.

The Bush administration's disgracefully politicized Justice Department DID look into voter fraud claims for FIVE YEARS. What they found was that out of hundreds of MILLIONS of votes cast fewer than 100 documented cases of fraud -- around 85 of which were prosecuted.

Sorry, Robin. It just ain't the big deal your friends on talk radio are telling you. And the sad thing is that they're deliberately lying -- probably to cover up the massive voter suppression that does go on.

ruth| 11.9.08 @ 11:57PM

Tom Paine is doing what all good little Marxists do: Spreading mis-information.

Tom Paine| 11.10.08 @ 12:10AM

Ruth --

Instead of calling names, why not dispute something specific and offer evidence or some explanation of your reasoning to substantiate your claims?

ruth| 11.10.08 @ 12:27AM

Everything you write. I am going to start calling you, 'Bagdad Bob', remember him? Your mis---information buddy, and, damn, you both work(ed) for a boss named Hussein!!! Imagine that.

Tom Paine| 11.10.08 @ 2:10AM

Ruth --

Oh, come on....we don't both work for a guy named Hussein. I mean, he worked for Saddam Hussein, and I work for Barack Obama.

Hey.....wait a minute. Isn't Obama's.....isn't his middle name....no, wait.....you're right.....yes, yes...his middle name....it's Hussein.

I can't believe how blind I was. But now I see. Saddam's last name was Hussein. And Obama's middle name is Hussein.

They're the same type of person. I hadn't a clue. Thank you, Ruth. You have shown me the error of my ways.

Tom Paine| 11.10.08 @ 2:16AM

Ruth --

But all kidding aside. I see you keep accusing people of being Marxists.

What, in your view, is the essence of Marxism? How do you understand Marx's basic philosophy?

Tell me what you know about Marx to help me understand more about this accusation you are making of everyone that disagrees with you about anything.

WendyG| 11.10.08 @ 8:42AM

Excellent posts Robin.

And still no solid reason from Tom Paine as to why he voted for Obama. Methinks if we got one we'd see he supports a socialist agenda.

BTW - another gaffe from the Obama team. One of his transition team members said on a Sunday show that Obama's ready to "rule" on day one.

Not govern - RULE. Either these people are stupid and don't understand our system of government, or he thinks he has been voted King and he plans to act like one.

Thomas| 11.10.08 @ 10:43AM

Always judge a man by his actions, not by his words. Remember the old "joke":

How do you know when a politician is lying?
His lips are moving.

Gotta go.

Tom Paine| 11.10.08 @ 12:10PM

Thomas --

I didn't have you pegged as a non-sequitur artist, but there you go.

Wendy G --

Why did I and about 75 million of your fellow citizens vote Obama?

Why, we did it because the media brainwashed us, ACORN registered us under phony names, McCain blinded us with his moderate environmental policies, and because I spend all my time smoking dope with Marxist satanists who are plotting to destroy Sarah Palin and western civilization by getting gay marriage reinstated in California. William Ayers is in charge, now, honey.

WendyG| 11.10.08 @ 1:43PM

Tom, I really had hoped you would tell us why voted for Obama. Put forth a valid argument for your candidate. I still hope you do.

Robin| 11.10.08 @ 2:26PM

Thanks Tom (re aplomb) and thanks Wendy.

Tom, please, check your assumptions at the door.

Without so much as bothering to check your facts or even find out who I do or don't listen to, you toss this off as "your friends on talk radio are telling you. And the sad thing is that they're deliberately lying -- probably to cover up the massive voter suppression that does go on."

Awfully convenient. Not factual. Typical democrat party line.

Generally I don't care who says what -- democrat, republican, independent, libertarian -- I care if what they are saying is factual and reasonable. I'll adress your ACORN points in a moment.

You go into ACORN in some detail, and skip right over all of the other points I brought up. I am glad that you find those points interesting at least.

Why did about 75 million vote for Obama you ask? I don't believe they did. I believe the numbers are more like 65.4 M for Obama. Why did about 57.4 M vote for McCain, especially considering how unpopular Bush is, how biased the media is, how nasty the financial markets turned? Frankly, it doesn't say much for Obama that he didn't have a much larger popular vote all things considered.

WRT to your ACORN points, item by item as you listed them.

1) ACORN is NOT required to hire convicted criminals and felons, and yet they have done so in multiple states. ACORN is NOT required to pay people by the number of registrations they obtain, which begs for fraudulent input. ACORN is NOT required to keep those who repeatedly turn in clearly fraudulent registrations on the roles, and yet they often have far beyond anything reasonable. At best its management incompetence and fraud with our tax dollars, at worst its planned attempt at voting fraud of various types.

2) The whole point is that ACORN has NOT made reasonable attempts to stop the registration fraud, and that is why they are under FBI investigation in about 13 to 15 states -- most of them swing states by the way, where this sort of fraud is the most likely to result in incorrect voting results.

3) You state: " New registrants are so far and away likely to be Democrats," which is, unfortunately quite true, and a large part of the point I've been trying to make to you. Do you believe that the majority of these do their due diligence to vote knowing what each candidate really stands for?

You go on: "that there is literally no conceivable, possible motive for any organized attempt to make phony registrations. " Here I would have to strongly disagree with your assumptions. The first part of your statement is EXACTLY why there is strong motive to create and/or allow phony registrations.

4. Assumption tied to fact. Yes, many are submitted by those who are trying to game the system to earn more. Why is ACORN not managing this better, when this same problem has occurred in every election they have participated in? Again, we're back to at best incompetence and misuse of federal funds, and at worse, attempts to game the system for the democrat party vote.

5) Again, please check your assumptions at the door. I'd bet you almost anything that quite a few "Donald Ducks" exist. Try a simple search at whitepages.com, you get too many returns to list without narrowing it by state or age. Wanna bet some of those voted (and are real people)?

Granted there clearly is a different between registration fraud and voting fruad -- the later is clearly far more difficult to check when we aren't requiring proof of citizenship to register or proof of who you are to vote. That said, you best check your facts on what actual voting fraud (NOT registration fraud) has already been found this election or was headed off just prior to the election.

WRT voter suppression -- do you believe it is voter suppression to verify a person's eligibility to vote in a timely fashion before major elections? Do you believe it is voter suppression to ask that a provisional ballot be submitted for those that still need verification? If so, where is the suppression when that person HAS voted?

This doesn't even begin to get into the issues of disenfranchisement of our overseas military personnel, problems with absentee voting within the US (I, for example, could have EASILY voted in at least three different states this election. Needless to say, I most certainly did NOT do so) and so on.

Link please for your claims about the "Bush administration's disgracefully politicized Justice Department DID look into voter fraud claims for FIVE YEARS. " and the supposed fewer than 100 number.

Robin

ruth| 11.10.08 @ 4:58PM

TP doesn't substantiate his inflammatory claims. He's just trying to spread mis-information.

DJ| 11.10.08 @ 6:36PM

If the government also known as the STATE, forces you to perform what they call "community service" on their behalf that means you are BEING FORCED TO PROVIDE SERVICE FOR THE STATE!! You can rephrase it anyway you like you can play all the dictionary games you want but this is what it boils down too.

Our constitution does not afford our government rights unavailable to the individual. If I force another private citizen to perform "community service" it is called SLAVERY.

What exactly does "community service" entail anyways? Does it mean picking up litter on the side of the road? If so I suspect the amount of littering to increase by 10 fold. If someone will clean it up for free why should I ride around with this garbage?

Or perhaps a good community service for kids would be to denounce their parents when they in any fashion go against what big brother has designed for them. Then the secret police can simply remove them for "re-education"

Anyone who thinks this "community service" bull makes sense needs to read 1984

ruth| 11.10.08 @ 6:47PM

Finally! Tom Paine has outted himself.

Lisa P | 11.11.08 @ 5:05AM

The US financial crisis greatly affects its economy and other countries as well. In the past presidential election, the community has the chance to vote for the new steward and country leader. The reason why Americans has chosen Barack Obama is because for a change in the US economy and its system as a whole. They believe that he will bring a good change to the country. Obama has promised many things like lower taxes on the middle class, a timeline for withdrawal from Iraq, and a “line by line” trim of the federal budget. Do we think that Obama is for the eradication of the payday loan industry? He may be bringing change, but hopefully not change from the freedom of PAYDAY LOANS as an alternative with dealing with the banks and credit card companies that got us into the mess we got into in the first place. Click to read more on Payday Loans

Cheryl| 11.12.08 @ 7:33PM

This sounds like a Hitler Youth Corp to me. Preparing our young people, so that at a moment's notice, we have a massive obedient army ready to the dictator.

Julie| 11.13.08 @ 9:44AM

This indoctrination of our youth has been practice in every country that was taken over by every communist country. They get the kids young and turn them into good little comrade who will even turn in their parents and grandparents for. History is repeating itself and nothing can stop it because we all keep thinking it can't happen here. But it can and is unless we all don't let it happen. Should never have been voted in in the first place. What a mess we've left our children.

Trailboss| 11.19.08 @ 6:47PM

Matthew, I noticed that you checked in over @A/C forum a couple of months ago, many of the forum members now reside at;
http://www.covertconservatives.com/phpbb3/index.php

BTW, I find this Obamination pretty creepy also.

The Spectacle Blog

One of The London Soldier Beheading Suspects British Born

Aaron Goldstein | 6:42PM

Lois Lerner Now on Administrative Leave

Kaylin Bugos | 6:13PM

Crisis Looms, and Kevin Williamson Can Hardly Wait

Luca Gattoni-Celli | 5:48PM

Dismantling Networks, Preventing Footholds

Ross Kaminsky | 5:30PM

Bill Would Ban All Abortions After 20 Weeks

Jordan Gonzalez | 4:15PM

Harry Reid Pushes for the Nuclear Option

Claire Healey | 1:11PM

Weiner: More Photos of My Junk Might Surface

Kyle Peterson | 12:55PM

#FreeKate? Movement to Normalize Pedophilia Finds Its Poster Girl

Robert Stacy McCain | 10:09AM

Latest Headlines

The Inoperative Jay Carney

Jeffrey Lord|131 comments

Lerner’s Plea

Ray V. Hartwell, III|143 comments

Eugenic Abortion 2.0

Daniel Allott|57 comments

Holding AWOL Obama Accountable

Betsy McCaughey|18 comments

What Are the Risks of Syria Involvement?

Christopher Orlet|25 comments

Obama’s Imbroglios

R. Emmett Tyrrell, Jr.|41 comments

Obama’s Drone War

Jed Babbin|16 comments

Catholic Culture In America

G. Tracy Mehan, III|30 comments

FLASHBACK TO: 1995

Pope Culture

By George Sim Johnston

A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck

By P.J. O'Rourke

Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
Dames at Sea

By John Corry
In the Absence of Guns

By Mark Steyn

In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
The Metaphysical Martini

By Werner J. Dannhauser
Counting the Costs of Clintonism

By Robert H. Bork

The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
Chuck McHagel

By George Neumayr

It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted

By Douglas Bartholomew
It’s the Best Time of the Year

By Mark Steyn

The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
The Bush Crack-Up

By Brit Hume

Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?