Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

internetworkers - RE: [internetworkers] Just for fun

internetworkers AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Internetworkers: http://www.ibiblio.org/internetworkers/

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "Tony Spencer" <tony AT tonyspencer.com>
  • To: "'Internetworkers: http://www.ibiblio.org/internetworkers/'" <internetworkers AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: RE: [internetworkers] Just for fun
  • Date: Fri, 23 Apr 2004 14:06:40 -0400

Thanks for the sources guys. I didn't know about these bills. It is
unsettling to see them especially since they have been created purely for
political gain.



> -----Original Message-----
> From: internetworkers-bounces AT lists.ibiblio.org
> [mailto:internetworkers-bounces AT lists.ibiblio.org] On Behalf
> Of Michael
> Sent: Friday, April 23, 2004 12:32 PM
> To: Internetworkers: http://www.ibiblio.org/internetworkers/
> Subject: RE: [internetworkers] Just for fun
>
>
> Tony,
>
> Why settle for just the media, since we all know /they're/
> loopy, when you can read the bills themselves?
>
> But what the heck, you asked for media reports, so here we go:
>
> SF Gate story:
> http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2004/03/13/MNG
> 905K1BC1.DTL
>
> Seattle Post-Intelligencer story:
> http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/164693_draft13.html
>
> The New American's blip about it:
> http://www.thenewamerican.com/tna/2004/04-05-2004/insider/draft.htm
>
> Seattle Post-Intelligencer editorial piece:
> http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/150920_means04.html
>
> Now, I reckon that's enough media. Here's the texts of the
> bills being talked about. Note that they're not specifically
> "special skills drafts,"
> and are more for compulsory national service either in the
> military or "in a civilian capacity that promotes national
> defense," so they may not be as relevant - or maybe they're
> more so. Note that S 89 proposes including women in the
> draft by simply striking "male" and inserting "or herself"
> after "himself" and substiting "the person" for "he"
> everywhere they appear in the Selective Service Act.
>
> The Senate version (via Fritz Hollings, D-SC):
> http://www.congress.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c108:S.89:
>
> The House version (via Several Reps):
> http://www.congress.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d108:HR00163:@@@L&summ2=m&;
>
> Also, note that the bills referenced are much older than the
> news articles and editorial. The media coverage is from the
> last few weeks; the bills were introduced in early 2003 and
> have been in committee ever since. It looks to me like the
> House version has gotten slightly further by having been
> referred to the Subcommittee on Total Force, but for all I
> know that means it's gotten even less traction so they're
> just trying to bury it as deep as possible. Do I think I'll
> be sorely disappointing my local draft board for a variety of
> reasons anytime soon? No, I don't think it's anytime soon.
> But I think it entirely possible (if not likely) that
> precisely what Scott is describing will happen.
>
> --
> http://www.compoundx.org "I want a horse! I want
> Michael Williams a horse that bites people
> http://www.ibiblio.org/michael when I tell it to!"
> michael AT ibiblio.org --co-worker
>
>
>
>
> ---
> Come and play at the InterNetWorkers Web site!
> http://www.ibiblio.org/internetworkers/
> You are currently subscribed to InterNetWorkers mailing list
> To unsubscribe visit
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/internetworkers
>
>





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page