Forum: Author Hangout

Thank you. Putting the date on is brilliant

You'll note no references to current politics, other than the unspoken one: can we bring some of this back?

Nope.

After Pearl Harbour there was a significant number of people who wanted to join the armed forces.

After 9/11..... (Insert tumbleweed audio clip here)

If those who desire to be involved in politics put their countries best interests ahead of their dogma, it works.

When those who are involved seek to secure the pork barrel... It don't.

Someone once said, "I'm going to clear the swamp", he failed to mention, or perhaps failed to consider that to do so he would need the help of the alligators...

Obviously James (Jimmy) Stewart went to Washington and made changes... But that was a movie, in real life it takes consensus and cooperation, plus enough character to put country before self and party.

If those who desire to be involved in politics put their countries best interests ahead of their dogma, it works.

Then it has never, ever worked. Those who desire to be involved in politics do so because they desire power for it's own sake.

Those who desire power are unworthy of it.

But that was a movie, in real life it takes consensus and cooperation, plus enough character to put country before self and party.

Actually, it's too late. Money, the corruption of partisanship which has negated the tri-corner system of checks and balances, and fickle partisan-driven gov't policy have combined to destroy the integrity of our government. Consider: US foreign polity is fleeting, but betrayal is forever. Just ask the Kurds. And inquire how secure other treaty allies might feel right about now.

And if a Frack candidate is elected Prez on a reform ticket, will the Frick-controlled Senate not repeat it's pledge to stonewall any and all reforms? (Insert hysterical laugh-track here.)

have combined to destroy the integrity of our government.

Assumes without evidence that there was ever any integrity there.

Alexander Hamilton swore to the other members of his state ratifying convention that the commerce clause + the necessary and proper clause was not enough to allow the creation of a national bank.

Then he became the first Secretary of the Treasury and one of his first acts as Secretary of the Treasury was the creation of a national bank.

After Pearl Harbour there was a significant number of people who wanted to join the armed forces.

After 9/11..... (Insert tumbleweed audio clip here)

There was actually a pretty significant uptick in recruiting after 9/11. It just resulted in them becoming more selective in who they recruited to a large extent.

The bigger problem at the time was they didn't expand the military as they weren't expecting what followed. Even if they did, Afghanistan wouldn't have changed, Iraq is likely another story entirely, but the total force size wouldn't have changed regardless.

Edit to add: Of course, the "uptick" didn't last more than a couple years, but at the point you can thank the Media's portrayal of things for having a significant input on that.

There was actually a pretty significant uptick in recruiting after 9/11. It just resulted in them becoming more selective in who they recruited to a large extent.

The current approach is to prefer and heavily recruit non-documented residents for US Military service. It's proving economically beneficial to use them for a four or five-year deployment, and then deport them upon arrival back home, thus eliminating the burden on GI bill and VA medical benefits.

Ref: Rep Tammy Duckworth recent visit to Tijuana 'safe house' for deported US veterans.

I always say we may have a corrupt government but damnit we have the best corrupt government in the world.

What government may that be? Maybe I can then say 'yeah, ok' or have a good hard laugh.

but damnit we have the best corrupt government in the world.

Depends on what you mean by 'corrupt?' If it's corrupt like a mountain of dead fish rotting and stinking in the noon-day sun, or like a sweating US Senator kissing babies on the campaign trail? Given a choice, I'll take the dead fish.

Additional definition of corruption is needed. Usually, I think of a corrupt act as one that benefits the politician personally, with little or no benefit to the constitutency.

Is "corrupt" the right word for someone variously who uses procedural measures to interfere with widely supported legislation, or inflames a group into opposition?

I have known some decent politicians that managed to delude themselves. A long time ago, I was at the US Capitol, looking at a large demonstration on the National Mall, with two Congressmen whom I respected. They managed to convince themselves that none of their constituents were in that mass.

"Gentlemen, what if orderly groups of 10 people simultaneously showed up at all your district offices?"

"We'd take that very seriously."