How to Honor Ali: Abolish the Draft

An Open Letter

To: President Obama and All Members of Congress

I write this in the early morning hours following the news of Muhammad Ali's death.

I have yet to hear or read statements from public figures, but I know most of you will say nice things about his life and legacy. In addition to his greatness in the boxing ring, you will honor his courage in standing up for his convictions.

But I'll know you are sincere if and only if you do one thing: support a bill to abolish Selective Service.

That's right: get rid of the draft once and for all.

Ali risked imprisonment because he refused to serve during the Vietnam War. His case reached the Supreme Court and he won only on a technicality. The draft continued, and many lost their lives because of it.

No one should be forced to die in a war he wouldn't have voluntarily fought. And no one, whether Ali or someone not as rich and famous, should be punished for refusal.

Although America hasn't had a draft since 1973, the Selective Service System still holds American young men hostage. They must sign up for the possibility of getting drafted, or face legal consequences and lose opportunities.

But remember that wrong isn't right just because politicians want it. The Selective Service requirement is involuntary servitude. It is coercion at its worst.

It is unfit for a nation that calls itself the "Land of the Free."

If you really admire Ali, you wouldn't want to force today's young people to go through what he did.

So do the honorable thing, and honor Ali while you do it. Abolish the draft once and for all!

Sincerely,

James Leroy Wilson

Quality of Life and Conscription

I posted this comment on a David Henderson Econlog post:

Support for war, and willingness to fight, may be diminishing whether there
is or isn't conscription.

It could be a result of life just being better: more pleasures, more
wealth, more choices, etc. The incentives to sign up and fight just aren't
there.

Perhaps in the past, killing and dying to advance the self-interest of
politicians made some sense because life tended to be nasty, brutish, and short
anyway. Now, life is pretty good in the USA in more and more parts of the
world.

When life is fun, why fight?

NEW CAMPAIGN: Does the "Axis of Error" Want to Arm Al Qaeda?

The latest at DownsizeDC.org.

Peace on Earth, Good Will to ALL

Source: http://www.downsizedcfoundation.org/blog/peace-on-earth-good-will-to-all

This is a special message from the Downsize DC Foundation...

Christmas Day, and the whole Holiday Season, is a time when many people sing songs about "peace on Earth, good will to men."

Even for the non-religious, this ideal of Christmas can warm the heart.

But the feeling quickly passes... often as soon as we turn on the news or go on the Internet.

The ill will starts to flow, against...

• Democrats or Republicans
• Muslims or Christians or atheists
• Persons who live "alternative" lifestyles or persons who uphold "traditional" values

Whoever we are, and whatever our values, we often feel under attack. We believe that OTHER PEOPLE - inside and outside our country -- want to undermine our values or way of life.

But there's one common element. No matter what "side" we are on, we usually tend to think as AMERICANS. We ask questions like...

• What is America coming to?
• Has America lost its way?
• Is such-and-such good for America?

It is natural to think this way. After all, we are Americans. This is our home. Of course we have an interest in our home.

But, we are human beings first.

When we think of "peace on Earth, good will to men," does this mean peace for just some parts of the planet, or all of it? Is it good will to some people, or to all?

• Are poverty and unemployment important only when Americans suffer?
• Is war tragic only when Americans suffer?
• Do your rights come from your American citizenship, or are they inherent in your humanity -- in the humanity of all persons on the planet?
• Is the use of violence and coercion the path to peace and good will?
• Isn't it possible that the people you resent and fear the most, might also have reasons to resent and fear YOU?
• And if resentment and manipulation causes trouble in personal relationships, should we give our consent to States to routinely use coercion and violence?

It seems healthy that we do more than sing about "peace on earth, good will to men." Perhaps, we should actually give real thought to why we have not yet reached this ideal.

We hope you find these questions helpful.

Merry Christmas to you and yours!

The Downsize DC Team

The Federal Government Has No Credibility

http://www.downsizedc.org/blog/the-federal-government-has-no-credibility

Quote of the Day: "Everyone wants to live at the expense of the state. They forget that the state wants to live at the expense of everyone." Frederic Bastiat

Is silence equal to consent? The incumbent politicians on Capitol Hill sure act as if it is!

You must make it CLEAR to them that you do NOT approve. There are lots of ways to do so. Some are effective; some aren't. Some are economical; most are complex and expensive.

DownsizeDC.org's "Educate the Powerful System" provides everyone with an address a SIMPLE method to withdraw consent. This PROPRIETARY system...

1. Allows you to send a letter to your Rep. and two Senators, simultaneously.
2. Makes sure that those offices know that they're hearing from constituents, which wouldn't be possible with a simple email.
3. Ensures that you are NOT alone. Other people who agree with you, are sending letters on the same issue.

The Downsize DC Team uses this system. You can too! Here are our most recent letters to our "representatives" and we encourage you to copy from us, or better yet, write your own letter...

"A Government With No Credibility Sees Its Credit Rating Lowered"

Read this "Cut Federal Spending" letter by James Wilson on the DownsizeDC.org blog.

S&P downgrade proves Debt Deal was a sham. Tell Congress to make REAL cuts in spending. #DownsizeDC http://bit.ly/qwpx6m
Retweet: http://twitter.com/#!/DDCDispatch/status/100926452425428992

"Poll Shows that Politicians Lack the Consent of the Governed"

Read this "Repeal Obamacare" letter by Perry Willis on the DownsizeDC.org blog.

Americans didn't approve. Still got bailout, Obamacare, and the "debt deal." Make your disapproval CLEAR. #DownsizeDC http://bit.ly/qcljRt
Retweet: http://twitter.com/#!/DDCDispatch/status/100934742060433409

"I'd Be Happy to Leave Afghanistan"

Read this "Get Out of Afghanistan" letter by Jim Babka on the DownsizeDC.org blog.

"If you don't want us, we're happy to leave." - Joe Biden to President Karzai. Make US happy Joe! Leave! #DownsizeDC http://bit.ly/q0K7Hf
Retweet: http://twitter.com/#!/DDCDispatch/status/100939105784954880

Choose one. Choose all. Send your letter(s). Tweet! Withdraw your consent, loud and clear.

And then, be sure to tell your friends about www.DownsizeDC.org

Jim Babka
President
DownsizeDC.org, Inc.

Violence as Myth

Check out my latest at The Partial Observer. Excerpt:

With the loosening of standards in the late 1960's and the introduction of the MPAA system, we began to see more instances of violence, and more graphic violence, in movies and television. Some of it has some merit; some of it makes me cringe. And yet no fictionalized violence compares to the other kind of violence we rarely see live, but often see reported on television. This is Violence as Myth.

Why Fight for Qadhafi?

Check out my latest at The Partial Observer. Excerpt:

Most people want to do the "right" thing, but find themselves in a world with no good options. Two people who choose differently may find themselves on the opposite side of a shooting war.

Who am I to say who chose wrongly, if I've never walked in their shoes?

Between God and Man

Check out my latest at the Partial Observer. Excerpt:

Whether it's economic redistribution, the jailing or forced "rehabilitation" of the nonviolent, or forced taxation to build war machines, people of "faith" seem to place their real faith in the State, rather than in their God. And because the State is nothing but a monopoly of the use of force, faith in the State means faith in violence.

Terror and Endless War

Check out my latest pieces from DownsizeDC.org and the Downsize DC Foundation:

• Your Pressure is Creating More Congressional War Skeptics
• Terrorism is a Crime
  

Osama Bin Laden and the 9-11 Exception

Check out my latest at the Partial Observer. Excerpt:

The most amazing aspect of this is how, in the post-9/11 world, so many are willing to believe the President (whoever he is) on issues of "national security" and terrorism. They will claim the President is personally unethical and lies all the time, but, when a "national security" incident related to 9/11 comes up, they will believe the President's claims.

I don't recall this before 9/11. Most wars had vocal critics and strong partisan opposition. Today, Presidents get a bi-partisan free pass.

Can You Afford Wars of Choice?

Check out my latest at The Downsize DC Foundation. Excerpt:

Our biggest "competitor," China, spends barely 1/7 of our military budget, and less than half in terms of GDP. China and India combined -- with one-third of the world's population - spend less on their military than Britain and France combined, which is less than a quarter of what the U.S. spends.

In fact, the United States accounts for 48% of the entire world's military spending!

While other countries may have large armies - a man with a gun is cheaper than the sophisticated hardware U.S. politicians like to buy -- they do NOT have the means to impose their will on other countries. They can provide manpower and equipment for auxiliary roles to support U.S.-led wars, or for UN peace-keeping missions, but they lack the ability to wage Wars of Choice on other countries. They can't afford it. Well . . .

We Americans must now realize that we can't afford it either.

Obama's Forgotten Value

Check out my latest at the Partial Observer. Excerpt:

I missed the news about the Koran-burning in Florida. Evidently, it occurred in Florida a couple of weeks ago.(Originally, the pastor behind the idea has scheduled to do it last September 11 but chose not to in the face of a media storm.)

In response, there have been deadly protests in Afghanistan, including the killing of some United Nations employees working there.

It could well be that American troops might be put in greater danger because of this.

This echoes the deadly protests from five years ago throughout the Muslim World in response to Danish newspaper cartoons depicting the Prophet Mohammed.

And it says something about the general futility of U.S. military interventions in the Muslim world. Democracy of some sort may gets a firm foothold over there, but freedom and human rights, as Westerners understand them, probably will not.

The Essence of Just War Theory

Check out my latest at the Partial Observer. Excerpt:

If more people adopted the Just War Tradition, we would almost definitely have fewer wars.

That said, perhaps even Just War Theory, while simple in principle, is too complicated in practice.

The question I would ask myself is, when wouldI go to war?

There is one plain answer: when the alternative is starvation or certain death for me and my family. I'd fight a war to survive.

War on the Cheap

My latest at the Partial Observer. Excerpt:

[I]t's easier for the young progressive to rail against "tea-baggers." It's a lot more fun to scream at Republicans in Congress who are obstructing health-care legislation, than it is to get shot at.

They may like Obama compared to the previous guy. That doesn't mean they have confidence in what he's doing in Afghanistan. At least, not enough to risk their own lives.

Rebel Without Some Causes

It's easy to feel like a jerk or worse on Facebook. I've changed the names of the invitees, and also the exact name of the Causes, but this is how it goes:

"Jane Smith invited you to support the cause Real Men Don't Hit Women."

"Mary Johnson has invited you to support the cause End Child Porn."

My responses? Ignore, and Ignore.

The worst part is, I don't ignore every cause or group. I know some people do as a matter of policy, but I don't. Yet, I "Ignored" perhaps the two causes that every decent person should agree with, right?

But as to the child porn thing, it seems to me that child porn as an issue is focused primarily in getting the government to monitor people's websurfing habits and forcing every business with wi-fi to keep records of everyone who ever used the Internet on their property. Eradicating child porn is the excuse, but Big Brother is the goal.

It's why I'd never join an "End Meth Addiction" cause even though it would be great if all meth addicts kicked the habit. I see that "cause" and I jump to the conclusion that it's about escalating the War on Drugs, something I definitely do not endorse.

As to the violence against women cause, I clicked to find out more. I saw that the beneficiary of donations was actually a gay rights group committed to sensitivity training in the workplace. I'm not necessarily against that, but a) it didn't seem directly related to the Cause, and b) I couldn't tell looking at things briefly whether this group had a political agenda of imposing "civil rights" by attacking property rights and freedom of association. It does seem to me that this is what most "civil rights" groups are actually committed to. I don't have time to research everything in detail, so I decided to Ignore this cause.

I was also recently invited to join a group or Cause to support the Massachusetts cop who arrested Henry Louis Gates. I wasn't there and didn't pay much attention to the story. But even if I thought the cop correctly followed protocol, which many insist he did, I'd still be reluctant to defend the police in any instance. As Will Grigg and others note, police assert too much power and have been given too much authority these days. To "support" this cop would likely mischarcterize my general views regarding the state of law enforcement in America, which is decidedly negative.

This is also why I don't join groups or causes that "support the troops." Such organizations, at some point in their literature, suggest that the troops are protecting us or defending freedom. I believe, however, that instead they were deceived by politicians and are going through hell for no reason except to protect the interests of politicians. I only join "Support the Troops - Bring them home!" type causes.

Shout-out to Canada for Canada Day

Canada Day is July 1st. As a child, I spent almost 12 years in Canada as an American citizen with "landed immigrant" status. I think the equivalent would be that my Dad had a Green Card and could bring his family over, though we never viewed our time in Canada as permanent.

Many years after returning to The States, I discovered a brilliant Canadian folk group called Tanglefoot.

Most American "patriotic" songs are about war, with homages to Flag and "Freedom." Tanglefoot also addresses war and its costs from the Canadian perspective. For instance, here they are performing a song about the War of 1812 and self-defense from American aggression. The only just warriors in a war are those defending their homes.



And here's a song about World War I:



It is sad that Canada, as part of the British Empire at the time, felt obliged to sacrifice its men in senseless debacles like World War I. On the other hand, the United States also took the side of the British Empire and got itself involved in that stupid war, and our diplomatic blundering led to World War II.

It makes one wonder why the States declared independence at all, if we chose to fight England's battles anyway.

Questions for McCain and His Supporters

People like John McCain should read Steve Coll's article on Gen. Patreaus and the Surge in the New Yorker and ask themselves a few questions:

1. The Surge was a strategic risk, and even many in the Pentagon disagreed with it. Moreover, critics of the war never doubted that Iraq could be pacified sooner if there were a lot more troops, but adding 20,000-30,000 looked like too little, too late. Question: Of the two, whose judgment should we trust more,
a) One who supported the war in the first place, which remains a strategic blunder for the ages that has weakened America militarily and financially, or
b) One who opposed the war from the beginning and disagreed with the Surge mainly because he thought ending the war sooner would be better than perpetuating the mistake?

2. Part of the Surge's tentative success came from buying off some Shiite militias and Sunni insurgents, and because the insurgents turned against the the extremist ("Al Qaeda") terrorists.
Question: do you know the difference between an insurgent defending home and clan from invaders by targeting the invading troops, and terrorists who blow up marketplaces and kill women and children?

3. Of the two, which posed a greater threat to American lives (military or civilian) before the invasion, the (then-non-existent) insurgents and militias, or Al Qaeda?

4. Was Al Qaeda even in Iraq before the invasion?

5. How big is the terrorist threat anyway? For seven years 1,000 terrorists could have sneaked across the U.S. border and could have set off countless car bombs or much worse. They have not. Why not?

6. Could it be for the same reason that advocates of violence are often laughed off or kicked out of radical groups? After all, in the post-9/11 world, the crimes of the government against the people have been so vast that one would think more anti-government militia-type groups would have formed, but since the Oklahoma City bombing no one wants to be associated with them. Could it be that the number of people willing to commit mass murder, or even be associated with groups that might consider it, are so few that it is almost impossible to find and organize them?

7. But for those who do lump Al Qaeda, Sunni insurgents, Shiite militias, and the Iranian government together as terrorists who "hate us" and "mean to do us harm," does it sit well with you that we have negotiated with and even paid the Sunni insurgents and Shiite militias not to fight? After all, you think they're all terrorists. If it's okay to negotiate with these "terrorists," then why is it then impermissible for Obama to seek negotiations with Iran?

Creating Enemies

In 1935 the League of Nations, led by Great Britain, imposed sanctions on Italy in condemnation of its invasion of Ethiopia. This destroyed the British-French-Italian Stresa Front, a fledgling alliance determined to keep Hitler in check and to guarantee Austria's independence. Mussolini loathed Hitler and was admired by Western intellectuals, but in international relationships, alliances are formed by having mutual enemies.

Will the United States make the same mistake with Russia? Its conflict with Georgia does not concern us, but we can antagonize Russia even more than we have, and drive it into the arms of China and into supporting Iran at every opportunity. Prematurely taking sides in overseas conflicts we do not understand, or taking the wrong side, will only serve to weaken the USA. Let's hope that, no matter what is said to the media, that we're "appeasing" Russia (it's a shame that has become a dirty word). How many enemies can America afford, anyway?

Churchill, Hitler, and the Unnecessary War

This is my latest at the Partial Observer. Comments welcome at the PO. Excerpt:

Buchanan wrote the book because the of Churchill Cult that exists in the United States. While fighting evil is admirable, destroying our own country's prosperity and strategic position to fight "enemies" who pose no threat to us and want no war with us is not. The would-be Churchills of the U.S. - President Bush first among them - appear more concerned about how history will look upon their own courage and heroism, but have little regard for the lives and welfare of the people they are supposed to govern.

Who Cares About Israel?

The other day I heard a caller on a public radio show rant against Arabs, how racist and dangerous Arabs are, that any clear-thinking people would love to have Jews in their country, how Jewish settlers in Gaza helped the economy tremendously before they were pulled out, and how too many Americans are too trusting of Arabs and don't see these issues clearly.

But why should I, as an American, give a damn one way or another? Yes, there is that $3 billion in foreign aid given to Israel every year, which allows Israel's enemies to blame America for Israel's actions. This in turn creates diplomatic headaches and the threat of terrorist attacks that probably cost Americans closer to $300 billion/year in Defense, Homeland Security, and opportunity costs. And this leaves out the possibility that America made war on Iraq and is threatening war with Iran in large part because those countries don't acknowledge Israel's right to exist. But all of this only goes to show that foreign aid to Israel is bad policy. To cut it off does not mean we are taking the side of Arabs. There is such a thing as neutrality.

If a similar dispute existed in Africa involving the same size of territory and number of people, we would probably ignore it entirely and call it "tribal" warfare - perhaps blaming it on the artificial boundaries created by European imperialists. A similar dispute in Southern or East Asia also would only barely get our attention. To the extent we are interested in the Balkans or meddle in the affairs of ex-Soviet Republics, we do so only to humiliate Russia. The U.S. may be more interested if something like it existed in the Americas - only because of our historically paternalistic attitude toward our neighbors - but even then it wouldn't consume nearly as much of our time and attention as does Israel, which is the size of Massachusetts.

Of course, every conflict is unfortunate. Human suffering, particularly war-related suffering is tragic anywhere. But human suffering outside of the U.S., and not caused by the U.S., is not the U.S.'s problem.

Some would try to persuade me that it's "obvious" that Israel is in the right, or that it's "obvious" that the Palestinians are victims of Israeli aggression, and that it's my "duty" to "see this clearly." But why should I even bother to study this, or form an opinion at all, when I don't bother to do so with most other national and ethnic strife in the world? This conflict is several hundred miles away from oil fields. The region may be of interest to some religious people, but they can donate money to the Israeli government on their own if they so choose. There is simply no vital U.S. interest on the east coast of the Mediterranean.

Why should I mourn the death of an Israeli more than anybody else? Because of his religion? Because he lives in a democracy? Because of his skin color? These are all very bad reasons. The Israeli is no more entitled to American protection, aid, or sympathy than any other person on the planet. No more than a Somalian or Albanian. Or Palestinian.