is a draft imminent?

[DrSmellThis]

Now all I

hope is that they discipline any soldiers who sent in pics of war dead/wounded, a national disgrace ended finally.



"Polk County Web site operator arrested on obscenity charges

Anthony Colarossi | Sentinel Staff Writer


Posted October 7, 2005, 10:23 PM EDT

Chris Wilson (POLK COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE)
Oct 7, 2005

A Polk

County man who operates a pornographic Web site that also displays disturbing images of Iraqi and Afghan war dead

sent in by U.S. troops has been arrested on 300 obscenity-related charges.

Polk authorities arrested Chris

Wilson, 27, of Edgewood Drive in Lakeland, said his attorney, Larry Walters. Sheriff's officials said Wilson was

being held at the Polk County Jail with bail set at $151,000.

Wilson is charged with one count of wholesale

distribution of obscene material and 300 misdemeanor counts related to 20 online films and 80 photographs obtained

from his Web site.

For each film and photograph there are three counts -- distribution of obscene material,

offering to distribute obscene material and possession of obscene material with intent to distribute."

Sounds

like another First Amendment case may be going to the Supreme Court. I find what he did to be offensive, from what I

read, though I haven't seen the site. But was it illegal? Should he be thrown in prison?

[Biohazard]

In other

words, you don't feel you should do things to help out or that other than earning a living you have no obligation?

So, you have a technical degree? Having a substantial technical education myself and having worked in technology all

my life I think I have a grasp of how much good it can do. Your employment mostly helps you, what about the rest of

society? You also didn't answer the question about doing it as civil service work. Overall, your reply is pretty

much what I expected though. Without trying to be snide about it, that's a dodge.

Correct, my

employment mostly helps me directly now, but it will help many down the road. I emphasized this already. My work

doesn't put an immediate smile on a needy child's face everyday, but it will do so for many eventually. And

that's a big reason why I do what I do, in addition to being able to be self-sufficient. Even you said people

ought to take more personal responsibility in their own well-being, and that there's too much of the "society owes

me" mentality around. If one is drafted to the military for civil service work, are they not paid for what they do?

I don't know anyone who can take a career in civil service without a salary.

Why should it

bother anyone if you served as a chemical or biological weapons specialist? We do not use those weapons so any work

you might do would be life saving.

It's obvious I'm pro-military, and therefore many ask me if I

would ever serve. But what they're really asking is whether or not I'd be willing to be on battlefield and put

myself in direct danger. And I would if needed, but pointing out that one can serve without being in the direct

line of fire is sort of a return jab. But it's obvious you weren't asking me that, but I thought maybe koolking

was.

You still haven't addressed the part about the option of civil work rather than

military. Would you be adverse to that? You haven't made any case yet for not making it mandatory

either

No, I would not be adversed to it. But why does one need to be in a uniform to serve their

communities?

My argument against a draft is based more on practical issues. First, I honestly do believe

it would weaken our fighting capabilites. Every military person I know personally agrees. Also, there is too much

resistance today against a draft that there would be some serious civil unrest and social breakdown if one were to

be re-instated now. If you're talking about a draft for purely non-fighting positions, we're kind of drifting

away from the original topic.

But I'll get back to you on that. I gotta run.

[Biohazard]

Okay belgareth, I'm back and I

re-read your posts a little more carefully now. Are you suggesting that the federal government ought to hold some

sort of draft where selected young men and women are not trained for combat, but rather trained and paid to carry

out domestic public services? I'm sorry, but that seems a little silly. The federal government really shouldn't

be in charge of employing people to clean up beaches, build playgrounds, serve food at soup kitchens, plant trees,

etc. That's just piling up more beuracracy into domestic life and would be an inefficient use of tax payer

dollars. These duties are best left to the various civilian entities.

Ideally, the federal government's

role in domestic life should be kept to the extreme minimum. The obvious exception would be responding to

catastrophes, and they can't even get that right for the most part. The military sector of the federal government

should be in the business of training people for combat.

Please clarify if I'm misinterpreting you. I'm

trying to decipher your idea of what type of "draft" ought to be re-implemented. When koolking started this thread,

we were talking about a draft used to fight wars. But it seems like you have another idea.

[belgareth]

That's not suggesting

anything. I'm asking you a question.

[Biohazard]

That's not

suggesting anything. I'm asking you a question.

I didn't quite understand your question initially,

which is why I asked for clarification. But I've answered your question above now that I catch your drift. I

think it's an inefficient use of funds for the feds to have a program of "purely civil service draftees." This

sounds almost communistic, and honestly it's the first time I've ever heard of such an idea. The military exists

for combat, not building domestic infrastructure.

So now we've come full circle. The purely civil

service draft idea exists only as a fantasy, and a military combat draft would never make it through in this day and

age. We're just back to my very first post now, where I stated things are going to stay the way they are now.

[belgareth]

Ok, so your only obligation to

your country is to have a job and earn a living and even a draft to serve some needed civil function would be wrong.

Does that sum it up?

[Biohazard]

Ok, so your

only obligation to your country is to have a job and earn a living and even a draft to serve some needed civil

function would be wrong. Does that sum it up?

If you are drafted for civil service, you will get paid

(by the gov't) and you will be earning a living performing civil service. How is that different from a civilian

performing the same work for pay? The only difference is the government uniform. Earning a living and performing

civil service are not mutually exclusive as you make it sound. "Obligation" to your community is fulfilled in many

ways.

Civil service in and of itself is ideologically noble and I have already stated I am not adversed to

it. Holding a draft for that sole purpose is not economically sound and therefore wrong (i.e. bad for the country

in the end). One doesn't need to be employed by .gov in order to be of service to their community.

[belgareth]

However, the simple act of

being employed, no matter what field you work in, does not constitute serving your country. I could easily make the

same claim since I provide a technical service to the community and I employ others. Personally, I think that would

be a bunch of crap. What is yours, or any citizen's, responsibility to their country?

[Mtnjim]

Were the draft reinstated, the

“civil service” draft would surely only be for “conscientious objectors”. The military would need all of the “cannon

fodder” it could get. Speaking as someone who was drafted---several times!!

[Biohazard]

However, the

simple act of being employed, no matter what field you work in, does not constitute serving your country. I could

easily make the same claim since I provide a technical service to the community and I employ others. Personally, I

think that would be a bunch of crap. What is yours, or any citizen's, responsibility to their country?

But why does one need to work for the government in order to serve their country? It seems like you keep

trying to lead me into agreeing with you that you need to be on government payroll in order to serve. Sure, one way

to serve is to help fight a war, in which case you need to be in uniform as part of the armed forces or be employed

by private security contractors working in a warzone. But if you’re talking about domestic jobs like coaching youth

baseball and building playgrounds, there is no necessity to be employed by the government. That’s turning civilian

sector jobs into a government-paid career. Your problem with the country is that there’s not enough volunteerism in

your eyes. But if you draft and pay people to do those very jobs, how have you solved the problem?

My

responsibility to the country is to help fight a war if drafted, which I stated in my very first post. Yes, I have

a responsibility to my local community as well through volunteerism. If the government pays me to do it, then it's

not volunteerism anymore. And I have done plenty of volunteering in my younger years. My volunteerism has tailed

off now that I have a full-time career, but that's to be expected.

[Biohazard]

Were the draft

reinstated, the “civil service” draft would surely only be for “conscientious objectors”. The military would need

all of the “cannon fodder” it could get. Speaking as someone who was drafted---several

times!!

That might be a reasonable idea. In the unlikely event of a draft, maybe it could be eased

back in by giving draftees the option of serving in a tank on a battlefield or serving by repairing the tanks behind

battle lines. But then, one would still be supporting a war that they "conscientiously object" to.

Still, I

think forcing people to work for the government is not really an accepted concept in America anymore.

[belgareth]

But why does

one need to work for the government in order to serve their country? It seems like you keep trying to lead me into

agreeing with you that you need to be on government payroll in order to serve. Sure, one way to serve is to help

fight a war, in which case you need to be in uniform as part of the armed forces or be employed by private security

contractors working in a warzone. But if you’re talking about domestic jobs like coaching youth baseball and

building playgrounds, there is no necessity to be employed by the government. That’s turning civilian sector jobs

into a government-paid career. Your problem with the country is that there’s not enough volunteerism in your eyes.

But if you draft and pay people to do those very jobs, how have you solved the problem?

My responsibility to

the country is to help fight a war if drafted, which I stated in my very first post. Yes, I have a responsibility to

my local community as well through volunteerism. If the government pays me to do it, then it's not volunteerism

anymore. And I have done plenty of volunteering in my younger years. My volunteerism has tailed off now that I have

a full-time career, but that's to be expected.

No, that's not what I am saying at all. Nor am I trying

to lead you into agreeing to anything. I want to know what you believe your obligation is to the society you live

in. I can't think of any other way to phrase it. Have you no other obligation to society than what you mention

above?

[belgareth]

That might be

a reasonable idea. In the unlikely event of a draft, maybe it could be eased back in by giving draftees the option

of serving in a tank on a battlefield or serving by repairing the tanks behind battle lines. But then, one would

still be supporting a war that they "conscientiously object" to.

Still, I think forcing people to work for the

government is not really an accepted concept in America anymore.

You are forced to work for the

government for approximately six months out of every year through taxation.

[Biohazard]

You are forced

to work for the government for approximately six months out of every year through taxation.

And no

one really likes it.

[belgareth]

The/we continue to allow it.

Some even speak of increasing taxes for one reason or another. Take the cigarette tax as an example. There's a hord

of other examples as well but the idiocy of that one always stands out.

[Biohazard]

No, that's

not what I am saying at all. Nor am I trying to lead you into agreeing to anything. I want to know what you believe

your obligation is to the society you live in. I can't think of any other way to phrase it. Have you no other

obligation to society than what you mention above?

I don't know how much more one is expected to

give. I'm an able-bodied male of military age, and I said I'd give my services to fight a war in the hypothetical

situation of a draft. I've given to my local community when I could through volunteerism. The rest of the time I

use to improve myself.

What other obligation do I have besides giving what I can?

[Biohazard]

The/we

continue to allow it. Some even speak of increasing taxes for one reason or another. Take the cigarette tax as an

example. There's a hord of other examples as well but the idiocy of that one always stands out.

I

don't think we'll allow any type of draft, however.

[belgareth]

I never said otherwise.



However, I think you kid yourself. 'We' will never allow a draft is poppycock. You operate under the assumptions

that the people are in control and are subject to rational thought and behavoir when there are examples all around

you demonstrating otherwise. The small percentage of the people really needed to swing support to a draft are not

that hard to convince. If you doubt that, look at what has been done in Homeland Security with our full consent. How

many rights did we cheerfully give away?

I'm just trying to get a clear idea of what you think your obligations

to the community and your country are. I don't have time to discuss it this morning but will come back to it

later.

[belgareth]

I don't know

how much more one is expected to give. I'm an able-bodied male of military age, and I said I'd give my services to

fight a war in the hypothetical situation of a draft. I've given to my local community when I could through

volunteerism. The rest of the time I use to improve myself.

What other obligation do I have besides giving what

I can?

That's my question. I'm not asking what you do, have done, won't do or can't do. I am asking

what your obligation is. It's a moral/ethical question.

[Mtnjim]

...Take the

cigarette tax as an example. There's a hord of other examples as well but the idiocy of that one always stands

out.

I think the "Excise tax" that we pay for phone service, tires etc. is an even bigger idiocy. Enacted

to fund the Spanish American war, a war that ended 100 years ago, it is still being collected.

[Biohazard]

However, I think you kid yourself. 'We' will never allow a draft is poppycock. You operate under the

assumptions that the people are in control and are subject to rational thought and behavoir when there are examples

all around you demonstrating otherwise. The small percentage of the people really needed to swing support to a draft

are not that hard to convince. If you doubt that, look at what has been done in Homeland Security with our full

consent. How many rights did we cheerfully give away?

Many won't notice when you steal a

dollar from them or insult them when they aren't paying attention. Try to cut off their pinky, and they'll notice

and resist.

When New Orleans instituted gun confiscations, there was some major hollering going on. An

appeal went through the judicial system and was successful, stopping the confiscations. I assume lawsuits are

following as well for loss of property and possible violation of civil rights. How's that for a little resistance,

short of violence? You're right, many people don't resist when they should. It takes something really outrageous

before things get nasty, sometimes leading to riots (how many times has that happened in our country?). A draft is

just the right recipe for that.

[Biohazard]

That's my

question. I'm not asking what you do, have done, won't do or can't do. I am asking what your obligation is. It's

a moral/ethical question.

I thought I answered that in my very first post. Maybe not about community

service and social volunteerism, because this thread was about fighting wars.

It just took me a

while to understand that what you really want is the government to pay young people to do what amounts to community

service work. It's like saying, "You don't want to volunteer in your community? Fine, we'll pay you to

vounteer." Makes no sense to me.

Fighting wars for the country (via draft if there is one) is a mutually

exclusive obligation, and a much different one at that than building playgrounds in your neighborhood.

[belgareth]

While I don't agree it is as

big an idiocy, it certainly stands as a good example when I claim there is no such thing as a temporary tax.

My

reasoning behind the cigarette tax is simple enough. Politician A say it will raise so many dollars and it probably

will at first. The government will use that mosey for whatever expenses allowing the budget grow to encompass every

dime of it and likely a few extra dimes as well.

As a result of this tax a certain number of people will quit

smoking and fewer will start, which is a good thing. However, that reduces the tax revenue that is a part of the

government's new budget. So, the government comes back and says "We have a budget shortfall and need to find

additional sources of revenue. Now we are going to tax this item" The same do-gooders who supported the cigarette

tax will end up paying those tax dollars a couple years down the road because there aren't enough smokers to fill

the coffers anymore and there's no such thing as a temporary tax.

In other words, it's all another government

shell game.

[Mtnjim]

...My reasoning

behind the cigarette tax is simple enough. Politician A say it will raise so many dollars and it probably will at

first. The government will use that mosey for whatever expenses allowing the budget grow to encompass every dime of

it and likely a few extra dimes as well....

True enough. The cigarette tax is passed as "providing funds

to care for the people made ill by smoking", then used for everything but...

And the people made ill by smoking?

They are out of luck.

[belgareth]

Now you've got it. The best

part is that public memory is so short that they can pull it again and again and again and so on. Kind of like

social security. It's broke, let's increase taxes and cut services. Then we can raid it to balance the budget. In

a few years we can claim it's broke and do it again.

[belgareth]

Many won't

notice when you steal a dollar from them or insult them when they aren't paying attention. Try to cut off their

pinky, and they'll notice and resist.

When New Orleans instituted gun confiscations, there was some major

hollering going on. An appeal went through the judicial system and was successful, stopping the confiscations. I

assume lawsuits are following as well for loss of property and possible violation of civil rights. How's that for a

little resistance, short of violence? You're right, many people don't resist when they should. It takes something

really outrageous before things get nasty, sometimes leading to riots (how many times has that happened in our

country?). A draft is just the right recipe for that.

I'll believe it when I see it. The courts are a

favorite venue in this country for everything. When you spill hot coffeee in your lap, go to the courts instead of

saying "Oh, stupid me. I should have known better." So far, I've seen more cases of the majority placidly doing

whatever they are told. When you talk about gun owners, for the most part you are talking about a different, more

militant group in the first place. You aren't talking about the majority. There may be resistance if a draft is

started. There was during Vietnam too. A small minority while the rest did as they were told. You probably won't

agree but the youth today are a lot less likely to do something about it than they were in the 60's and 70's.

Youth today are much too apathetic.

[belgareth]

I thought I

answered that in my very first post. Maybe not about community service and social volunteerism, because this thread

was about fighting wars.

It just took me a while to understand that what you really want is the government to

pay young people to do what amounts to community service work. It's like saying, "You don't want to volunteer in

your community? Fine, we'll pay you to vounteer." Makes no sense to me.

Fighting wars for the country (via

draft if there is one) is a mutually exclusive obligation, and a much different one at that than building

playgrounds in your neighborhood.

Wrong again! I am asking what your obligation is. Nothing more or

less. You keep trying to put all sorts of meanings to a straight forward question. Can you simply answer the one

simple question without all the hyperbole?

[Bruce]

Bel,

I'm not taking any

sides here, but I don't think Bio understands exactly what your question is. I know I don't, though I admit I

haven't read all the posts very carefully. I go through this with my wife a lot. She's talking to me in

Japanese, so that complicates things a bit, but basically the problem is the same. She asks me a question and looks

a little pieved about something which I'm not too clear on. I have two options try to answer what I *think* the

question is and maybe elaborate quite a bit hoping to get it with a sort of scatter-gun approach, OR... ask her to

clarify. Neither seem to go over very well, and the next thing you know we have a "fight" of some sort going

on.

Anyway, I originally just poked my nose in here thinking I would comment on what an amazing forum we have

here where a topic like that can pop up and it doesn't immediately turn into a pissing match.

Peace Love and

Hare Krsna; bells beads incense etc etc
B

[belgareth]

Hi Bruce,

My question

is:
What, in his opinion is a person's obligation to the society he/she lives in. I am not asking what he has

done, will do, can do etc. All I want to know is what a person should be expected to do for their society as a

member of that society. There's not even a right or wrong answer, I want an opinion.

And no, I am not in favor

of the government paying young people to do civil service work specifically. Nor have I in any way said or implied

it.

[Biohazard]

Hi Bruce,



My question is:
What, in his opinion is a person's obligation to the society he/she lives in. I am not

asking what he has done, will do, can do etc. All I want to know is what a person should be expected to do for their

society as a member of that society. There's not even a right or wrong answer, I want an opinion.

And no, I

am not in favor of the government paying young people to do civil service work specifically. Nor have I in any way

said or implied it.

But you said you want a draft back, if not for anything else, for domestic social

work. You feel that it's every young person's obligation to do community service work, and a draft which pays

young people to do that work is a means to achieve that. That is what you've directly implied by wanting your

"civil service" draft.

Maybe we are on different pages. You keep thinking ideologically, I keep thinking

about the practical implications of your ideas. You want more social involvement by the youth, and that's

perfectly fine. But you want some sort of draft to achieve that. I thought I answered your question a long while

ago, as we agreed that everyone young person's obligation is to help their community whenever they can. But you

want some type of legislation to make sure every able-bodied young person does that work, even if it means they will

get a paycheck for it.

It seems I'm not the only person who is struggling with your logic.