Date: Mon, 11 Aug 1997 14:32:40 -0700 (PDT) From: "Jonathan M. Bresler" <jmb> To: devnull@gnu.ai.mit.edu (Joel N. Weber II) Cc: jmb@FreeBSD.ORG, andrsn@andrsn.stanford.edu, hoek@hwcn.org, softweyr@xmission.com, chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: FTC regulating use of registrations Message-ID: <199708112132.OAA01265@hub.freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: <199708110858.EAA11563@ethanol.gnu.ai.mit.edu> from "Joel N. Weber II" at Aug 11, 97 04:58:09 am
index | next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail
Joel N. Weber II wrote: > > I'm not sure that I agree with this. I lived for two and a half years > in an area of San Diego called Rancho Penasquitos. It's a relatively > affluent area; the house I lived in was four bedroom, three bathroom, > three car garage house. One reason many people choose to live there > is the good public school system. (Poway Unified School District > is percieved as the good area; for various hysterical raisins it > includes two communities that are a part of San Diego, as well as > a seprate town called Poway.) > > I think that the poorest people who atttend Iolani School (on scholarships) > are likely poorer than the poorest who attend Sunset Hills Elementary. > > (Most of my friends seem to be on scholarships, despite the fact that > supposedly most people in the school aren't.) > > So it seems to me that where we have a competitive education system, we do you say "competitive education system"?? were vouchers available there? could parents send their children to any school they choose? > different social classes will intermix more. Because with the current > system, affluent people can buy homes in the more expensive areas, > and thus get into the rich districts. > > for the ills that compulsory military service entails, > one benefit is to create a common experience shared by a > large number of the adult population. an experience that can > serve to unify the citizenry (provided its not abused, as it > was during the vietnam war) > > That is bullshit. My understanding is that if you went to college, > you could delay getting into the war. And if you didn't get in the > war in your first year of elibility for the draft, you likely wouldn't, > because IIRC they would take every 18 year old they could before they > strated looking at the 19 year olds. So if you got a deferment, > you'd likely be way down the list by the time you were in the pool > to be drafted again. you paragraph supports my comments regarding the vietnam war. world war 2 was different, i am less sure about korea, but i understand that college deferements were as vietnam war phemonomon(sp?). > > And in general, the affluent are more likely to go to college. > > > Anyway, I don't intend to go to college, but I am sure that I would > try to find some way to avoid going into the military if there is > a draft in the next few years (I'm 17 now). I think that > making a career of killing people is just plain wrong. yes it is. making a career out of defending yourself is not. if you dont, who do you expect will? if few enouhg people opt out, its not a severe problem, if too many people opt out, no one will be willing to defend the others. military service is a duty, not a "joy". its the cost of having a citizen army as opposed to a professional army. professional armies are dangerous, sometimes they believe that they know better than teh civilianb govt, sometimes they act upon that belief. jmbhome | help
Want to link to this message? Use this
URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199708112132.OAA01265>