--- In NewPacifica@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, Kevin White <cuitlacoche1@...> wrote: > > I actually like the idea of national service as long as it's not military. > It not only can be organized into programs like meals on wheels, > Big Brother and Big Sister, Teach a child to read, neighborhood watches, > perhaps even internships on Pacifica stations... > > This give structure to some young people who may not have had much > structure. It gives them something to put on a resume when there was > once nothing. It gives young people a real world idea of how to survive > in the 21st Century. > > It can be, if done correctly, become a much needed right of adulthood. Kev, That's a "'rite' of adulthood," not a 'right' of adulthood. I am getting a little tired of constantly correcting your spelling. If you read more books, you'd see how the words were spelled on the page. Sometimes its different from how they just sound. Bayard > > I wish we did have national service. > > Kevin White > > > ----- Original Message ---- > From: sasha <sasha@...> > To: sasha <sasha@...> > Sent: Monday, July 28, 2008 10:04:38 PM > Subject: [NewPacifica] Somebody correct me...didn't Hitler do this...will the uniforms be Brown, or Black? > > > > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: Somebody correct me...didn't Hitler do this...will the > uniforms be Brown, or Black? > Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2008 11:05:37 -0700 > From: Chuck > > > Charlie Rangel and Obama's "Civilian Defense > Corps" > Exurban > League > July 28, 2008 > Remember > Obama's plea for a monstrous, over-arching civilian defense corps? > Turns out Charlie > Rangel wants it as well. > Charles Rangel's National Service Act, > which is languishing before Congress, provides for a universal draft > with two years [service] for virtually all persons aged 18-42, with no > deferment for college. The purpose of Rangel's bill is: > "To require all persons in the United States between > the ages of 18 and 42 to perform national service, either as a member > of the uniformed services or in civilian service in > furtherance of the national defense and homeland security . . > . ." > Here is how the civilian service is described in the bill (sec > 102(b)): > a civilian capacity that, as determined by the President, promotes > the national defense, including national or community service and > service related to homeland security. > (Emphasis in the original). > A government agency that has uniformed personnel who promote > homeland security? > Why hasn't anyone thought of this before! Let's call it, oh, say, > "The United States Military"!! > Now all we need is for Obama > to meet with the members of this (alleged) "U.S. Military" and see > if is these unnecessary products of pork-barrel spending valiant > warriors for hope and change are really needed? >