![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
eruthrosJust another news-reading note.
People often feel safe from the draft. They figure that the government won't reinstitute it, or that they're safe because they're too old, or because they're not athletically capable, or because they're women.
But the U.S. Selective Service System recently wrote a plan for the future of the agency.
And it contains phrases like these: "In line with today's needs, the Selective Service System's structure, programs and activities should be re-engineered toward maintaining a national inventory of American men and, for the first time, women, ages 18 through 34, with an added focus on identifying individuals with critical skills." (How can young people possibly support a government system that treats them like objects -- I mean, thanks, but I prefer not to be inventoried?)
They also propose a requirement that people who are registered regularly update the Selective Service about any training in specialized skills. (It's unclear what they would be doing with this -- the previous draft used a lottery based on date of birth. Would this mean you could be drafted if you spoke Arabic -- even if the draft was not being instituted for soldiers?)
How safe can you feel reading that?
(On a side note, how sad is it that this is in the Toronto Star and that even when I use google news, all I find for "draft -NBA -NFL" in major American papers are a number of articles on college students debating the concept of the draft?)
People often feel safe from the draft. They figure that the government won't reinstitute it, or that they're safe because they're too old, or because they're not athletically capable, or because they're women.
But the U.S. Selective Service System recently wrote a plan for the future of the agency.
And it contains phrases like these: "In line with today's needs, the Selective Service System's structure, programs and activities should be re-engineered toward maintaining a national inventory of American men and, for the first time, women, ages 18 through 34, with an added focus on identifying individuals with critical skills." (How can young people possibly support a government system that treats them like objects -- I mean, thanks, but I prefer not to be inventoried?)
They also propose a requirement that people who are registered regularly update the Selective Service about any training in specialized skills. (It's unclear what they would be doing with this -- the previous draft used a lottery based on date of birth. Would this mean you could be drafted if you spoke Arabic -- even if the draft was not being instituted for soldiers?)
How safe can you feel reading that?
(On a side note, how sad is it that this is in the Toronto Star and that even when I use google news, all I find for "draft -NBA -NFL" in major American papers are a number of articles on college students debating the concept of the draft?)
It is sad
Date: 2004-05-04 02:20 pm (UTC)Re: It is sad
Date: 2004-05-04 03:59 pm (UTC)Re: It is sad
Date: 2004-05-04 09:07 pm (UTC)After Grandpa died, we found his draft card from WWII; he had a deferment since he was in seminary. The class joke was that they were the class of 4D4 (i.e. 1944), since their exemption code was 4D. (I actually just looked up the current list and it lists students of religion under 2D while ministers are 4D, but either way it makes sense. ;)
Re: It is sad
Date: 2004-05-05 10:12 am (UTC)