Time magazine isn’t satisfied with reporting the news. It wants to play both journalist and lobbyist. Their website announced: "TIME is helping to lead a major push to make national service a priority in Washington. And we want you to get involved". In his "To Our Readers" article this week, Time Managing Editor Rick Stengel announced that Time has joined in a lobbying group called "Service Nation" to promote legislation for more federal government programs of volunteering. If the phrase "more federal government programs of volunteering" sounds strange, you’re not on Time’s wavelength.
Once again, Time is promoting a program led by recent Time cover-story honorees. The magazine will help host a September summit starring one-time Republican New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg and California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, who shared a cover last June. (Ironically, that story was headlined "Who Needs Washington?" Now Time declares that Washington must lead on volunteerism.)
As Brent Bozell noticed in 2006, when Time magazine named Bill and Melinda Gates (and rock star Bono) as their Persons of the Year for 2005, deep in the story, Time admitted it was doing some back-scratching of its own donors: they admitted the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation "was a major sponsor of the Time Global Health Summit, held in New York City in November."
Stengel explained how Time magazine would lead the country toward greater service:
Last September, our cover story "The Case for National Service" caused an outpouring of interest in and support for citizen service across the country. This year, in addition to publishing another issue on the idea of service, we are convening--along with the Carnegie Corporation of New York and with presenters AARP and Target--a national bipartisan summit in New York City that will bring together hundreds of leading Americans to plan and lay out a bold blueprint on citizen service. The event will start on the evening of Sept. 11--that solemn anniversary seemed an appropriate time to launch this effort--and the meeting itself will occur the next day, Sept. 12. The summit will also be the first major public event for ServiceNation, a national campaign of more than 100 organizations--ranging from AARP to the National Council of La Raza and Habitat for Humanity--that collectively represent some 100 million Americans. My co-chairs at the summit will be Alma Powell, Caroline Kennedy, Carnegie president Vartan Gregorian and AARP CEO Bill Novelli. The summit will be opened by New York City mayor Mike Bloomberg, who himself is an exemplar of citizen service, and will be closed by California governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, who is the first governor to create a cabinet post to oversee service and volunteering....
All the partners are keen to make the summit a place for not only dialogue but also action. To that end, ServiceNation is working with Senators Ted Kennedy and Orrin Hatch on legislation designed to expand opportunities for volunteering and national service. ServiceNation will urge the next President and Congress to enact that legislation by Sept. 11, 2009. Two weeks after the summit, ServiceNation will engage tens of thousands of Americans in hundreds of events across the country in a national Day of Action to highlight the benefits and goals of citizen service.
In last year's cover story on service, Stengel lamented how most Americans are lazy people who just pay taxes and vote:
Today the two central acts of democratic citizenship are voting and paying taxes. That's basically it. The last time we demanded anything else from people was when the draft ended in 1973. And yes, there are libertarians who believe that government asks too much of us — and that the principal right in a democracy is the right to be left alone — but most everyone else bemoans the fact that only about half of us vote and don't do much more than send in our returns on April 15. The truth is, even the archetype of the model citizen is mostly a myth. Except for times of war and the colonial days, we haven't been all that energetic about keeping the Republic.
Time proposed ten different ideas for federally-supported national service, although they insisted it was not mandatory service, despite their lament about the end of the draft.
Libertarian Sheldon Richman responded in kind to Stengel.
—Tim Graham is Director of Media Analysis at the Media Research Center.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Start 'Em Early
July 22, 2008 - 08:15 ET by DoktorFrankenFTA: The summit will also be the first major public event for ServiceNation, a national campaign of more than 100 organizations--ranging from AARP to the National Council of La Raza and Habitat for Humanity--that collectively represent some 100 million Americans.
AARP and LaRaza (The Race) makes any ''collective'' organization suspect - certainly nowhere near ''bipartisan''. But Time thinks we are all unknowledgeable fools, so who are we to disagree?
Perhaps Time and this ''bold blueprint on citizen service'' will create ''Youth Groups'' - training them early in their thought processes on how they should act as good ''citizens''. Funny, I thought I was taught that back in the fifties while in grade school. It was called learning to be a patriotic American. It started with reciting The Pledge of Allegiance every morning.
Since my wife and I have been in volunteer groups for decades I think I can attest to the fine people we have in ''flyover country'' and no one had to instruct us about ''National Service''.
why pay for volunteers?
July 22, 2008 - 10:56 ET by SouthJersey1953Why should the government pay people/groups to volunteer? There are several volunteer organizations that are doing fine wihtout Uncle Sam taking a piece of the action....
Volunteer and Government do not go together (unless you are talking about our volunteer military).
You may pick up your
July 22, 2008 - 11:08 ET by wiwfYou may pick up your brownshirt from the Clerk's Office and report for duty the next day. Sieg Heil!
The Rocky Mountain Collegian: Illustrating Idiocy
unfortunately for libs too
July 22, 2008 - 11:47 ET by TruthMongerunfortunately for libs too many volunteer opps are CHRISTIAN!!!!!!!!!
and when they see a cross they feel agonizing pain and must scurry back into their coffins until the sun sets
there is still always the peace corps - for the anti-Christ people
Yeah Jersey....
July 22, 2008 - 14:46 ET by HillbillyKingI agree. This is the definition for volunteer:
http://www.merriam-w...
here's one for employee:
http://www.merriam-w...
I wonder if I can "volunteer" for a gov't job, ummm, like maybe Senator?:)
If you make people think they're thinking, they'll love you; But if you really make them think, they'll hate you.
Don Marquis 1878-1937
Aaaah, coerced voluntarism
July 22, 2008 - 11:07 ET by Dr_Liberty... nothing better for the soul than to be forced to voluntarily give of your time and money. Indeed, we could "re-brand" taxation as "mandatory heartfelt donations given freely to the government."
Yes, I know that TIME has not fully endorsed the concept of requiring national service, but that slope is slippery.
I like this quote:
Last September, our cover story "The Case for National Service" caused an outpouring of interest in and support for citizen service across the country.
If that is true, then there is no need to lobby for the government to do it. All we need is occasional reminders to help our fellow citizens. (By the way, folks, such reminders can be heard on any given Sunday morning round 'bout 9 a.m. or 10:30 a.m. ... or by cracking open the #1 historical bestseller.)
I also like this one...
we are convening ... a national bipartisan summit in New York City that will bring together hundreds of leading Americans...
Leading Americans, eh? Does that mean I'm a follower? And who chose them as "leaders"? "Leaders" should actually read "people who don't produce anything of great value, have plenty of time to lay around and think of ways to make other people conform to their own preferences and ideals."
<insert witty signature here>
Didn't Germany's National
July 22, 2008 - 11:12 ET by Jack BauerDidn't Germany's National Socialists have a bang up version of that volunteer service?
I think it was called the HITLER YOUTH.
So I suggest we call it the OBAMA YOUTH...
(rolling eyes) What kind
July 22, 2008 - 11:17 ET by Cureboy675(rolling eyes)
What kind of scares me is that part of me thinks you honestly believe this to be a true sentiment.
YES YOU WILL... (insert
July 22, 2008 - 11:47 ET by Jack BauerYES YOU WILL...
(insert command from Herr Obama here...)
Bingo! Jack! We have a
July 22, 2008 - 11:42 ET by bassndudeBingo! Jack! We have a winner folks...
Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!
bass -- have you heard the
July 22, 2008 - 11:57 ET by Jack Bauerbass -- have you heard the Audacity of Dope's clips on Rush this morning?
God that guy's umming and ahhhing is LAUGHABLE, and just mind-blowingly irritating. That and the sibilant essses that infect his speech like a verbal tick.
He's now complaining to the press (at a press conference) that they are asking him "complicated" questions. Sometimes two and three at a time.
So much so that he's gonna (his word, gonna) hav' to "write them down" on, guess what, gasp... "a piece of paper!"
No folks, I am not kidding. The Democrat presidential candidate cannot take reporters questions and is complaining about it, live on air.
I don't think much of McCain, but this guy -- possibly the most dangerous mixture of arrogance and stupidity EVER melded in a candidate.
Yes Jack
July 22, 2008 - 12:00 ET by bassndudeAnd it is spooky. This self aggrandizing jerk is a moron.
I am not sure who he thinks he is. Ah, ah, ah....ah...Dont say that like that....speak up..
Of course, he is talking to a bunch of morons that can understand his stuttering. He is self over rated...A LOT!
Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!
Ha. Everytime I hear him
July 22, 2008 - 12:09 ET by Jack BauerHa. Everytime I hear him babble on any subject, I think .. heck I could have gone to Harvard if they let him in!!
It's like listening to Barney Rubble teach quantum mechanics at Dinosuar Valley U.
LOL Jack!! Barney Rubble is
July 22, 2008 - 12:15 ET by bassndudeLOL Jack!! Barney Rubble is a very succinct way to put it.
Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!
Buy and Sell
July 22, 2008 - 14:49 ET by Copperhead RidgeOut here in the hinterlands -- the place Andrea Mitchell believes is full of duncical, gap toothed yardparkers -- we have a saying that can sum up Barak Obama:
"I'd like to buy him for what he's worth and sell him for what he thinks he's worth."
In Barry's case, I think I would be in danger of suffering a windfall profits tax.
Seriously. I would love an
July 22, 2008 - 12:06 ET by Cureboy675Seriously. I would love an answer to this question. I posed it once before but nobody bothered to respond. Please...Anybody feel free to respond!
If you guys honestly think that the election of Barack Obama would mean a new dimension of Marxism, Fascism and/or Nazism. I sure hope, for the sake of your families, your children, your friends and your neighbors, that you are doing something about it. Because I have to tell you, if I honestly thought our country had even a somewhat decent chance of electing a Hitler or a Mussolini to the Presidency of the United States of America, I'd sure as hell be doing something about it. I would be too terrified not to. I would be knocking on doors. I would be raising money. I would be calling every number in the phone book. I'd probably even be organizing a resistance movement. I mean...That close to having Fascist Italy or Nazi Germany being the new way of life here in America?? I'd be spending my every waking moment trying to prevent that.
So my question...If you honestly believe this to be the case...What steps have you taken to prevent this from happening? And please don't say "I've been typing away on Newsbusters where I know almost everybody is going to give a response akin to: Bingo!! We have a winner!!"
That doesn't really count.
CB, we are going to vote.
July 22, 2008 - 12:34 ET by Dan The Man 2CB, we are going to vote. We talk to our coworkers friends and family write to our congress critters and try to convince people like you that it is a possibility. We need to look no farther than Hugo Chavez or Robert Mugabe to understand how it works. It is slow and incidious. Like a snake charming its victim.
Do you understand teh process is slow and hitler was not discovered to be a monster overnight? That even as late as 1938 Nevil Chaimberlain and others believed he was not as much a monster bent on taking over teh world as others thought.
But you can believe what you will and later on when you are enslaved think how did this happen.
You know one of Satan's greatest feats of conning the human populace was convincing them Satan is not real.
Nuke em til they glow then shoot em in the dark.
You're going to vote?
July 22, 2008 - 12:43 ET by Cureboy675You're going to vote? That's your answer. You're going to vote, talk to a few coworkers and hope for the best?
We're talking about Fascism!! We're talking about Nazism!! Doesn't that pretty much guarantee the end of every freedom we have enjoyed for the past 230-some years? I mean, if I were you, I'd be more than a little worried and be doing something besides writing a letter that'll be ignored underneath a pile of requests for press kits on your local Congressman.
And if Obama's wicked, wicked plans of Fascism and Nazism come to fruition and you and your family are stripped of all your freedom, you're going to turn to them and say, "Hey. I did what I could. I voted. I wrote a letter. I talked with the guys at work on break".
Thank the good lord that folks like George Washington and Winston Churchill were a little more daring.
Well we could rid the world
July 22, 2008 - 13:27 ET by Dan The Man 2Well we could rid the world of people who disagree with me. Are you going to volunteer? In a civil society we do all within the bondaries of the law and morality. In teh event that fails we can if teh situation warrants use or God given rights to forment revolution. We can also use the 2nd ammendment to do so.
Nuke em til they glow then shoot em in the dark.
Cureboy, you don't get it.
July 22, 2008 - 12:47 ET by DontFeedTheTrollsCureboy, you don't get it. What people fear is the fact that Obama and his ilk think that all Americans need the government to directly run every aspect of their lives and to take their money to do it. That is dictatorial, there is no other way to describe it.
D
Keep the ILLEGALS out, join NumbersUSA to send free faxes to your reps.
Hey. If thats the way you
July 22, 2008 - 12:52 ET by Cureboy675Hey. If thats the way you personally feel, I'm not going to say you must think otherwise. But my point is...If I honestly thought we were on the verge of dictatorship...I mean we're not talking some political issue like Roe v Wade or same-sex marriage or off-shore drilling...We're talking dictatorship!!
If I honestly thought that was a possibility, I'd be putting some action behind all my talk and moving heaven and earth to save our country from dictatorship!
I couldn't live with myself otherwise.
Pointing out the way a
July 22, 2008 - 13:05 ET by Jack BauerPointing out the way a Presidential candidate thinks would seem to be a useful exercise prior to the election.
Making an analogy that Senator Obama's call for a "government" directing of mass youth "volunteer" work (thus making it not voluntary) is a recurring feature in dictatorial and totalitarian societies. That would seem to be relevant PRIOR to voting.
That joining government directed organizations at the behest of the "Great Leader" and his missus is something Eva Peron did.
What next. The "volunteers" will earn credit in "government" eyes, and those who work for the government?
Now if the messiah were to indicate he believed in the power of being a good neighbor, in enabling private groups, and church groups to attract those who wish to give of their time, then great.
You know. I can handle a
July 22, 2008 - 13:27 ET by Cureboy675You know. I can handle a reasoned thought out reaction like that. Its not hysterics. Its an opinion that Obama's beliefs on government take too much away from the individual and in the long wrong can be harmful. And while I disagree with that opinion. At least its realistic, not feeding on people's fears and mass hysteria.
That's really the point I was trying to make. But these juvenile remarks on the order of "Obama=Marxism" "Obama/Hitler Youth" "Dictatorship=Obama". Without any explanation why they feel that way...Besides the need to make a comparison of Adolf Hitler (a man who killed 6 million jews) and Barack Obama (who is in the unique position of being a Democrat with political views that Conservatives don't agree with).
Its just really absurd and I was just trying to call out those who continue to make such silly comments.
This is just an attempt by
July 22, 2008 - 11:16 ET by Free ThinkerThis is just an attempt by the left to create a "utopian society" where its members devote their lives to a nation state that is all encompassing. This kind of fascist, totalitarian, nationalist ideal was tried and failed miserably in the early to mid 20th century. This is the change and hope the left is talking about.
Individualism is what has made America the envy of the world. The only people that prosper through the glorification of a nation state is the politically powerful at the top. That power is also what always causes the downfall of such social experiments. The role of the government should be to protect those individual liberties, not to become the purpose of its citizen's lives.
Please to explain. I just
July 22, 2008 - 11:19 ET by Cureboy675Please to explain. I just can't follow the linear logic that leads one from volunteer work to a foregone conclusion of...Fascism!!
Seriously. Some of you people really kind of scare me.
Study a little history. I
July 22, 2008 - 11:31 ET by Free ThinkerStudy a little history. I suggest you start with Mussolini, then Hitler for a bit more extreme example. This is just leftist ideology repackaged for a new generation. And yes, this kind of stuff should scare you. And, its not just volunteer work, its government controlled volunteer work. The federal government has no place in deciding how people should volunteer. But again, start with a history class or book. The link at the bottom of the post may also help.
Well I sure must have
July 22, 2008 - 11:35 ET by Cureboy675Well I sure must have missed the part where Time Magazine and Fascism's own Barack Obama started advocating **federally mandated** volunteer work.
Trust me. You guys scare me way worse than these extreme Fascism/Nazism/Marxism theories that you pull out of thin air every time Time magazine writes an article.
So, Cureboy...
July 22, 2008 - 11:51 ET by bassndudeAm I to understand that you are all in favor of mandated federal volunteer work?
Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!
I don't even see how those
July 22, 2008 - 12:12 ET by Cureboy675I don't even see how those words can appear in the same sentence and not be contradictory: "mandated volunteer work"
Please point me to the people who are saying we must be forced to spend our own personal time making other people's lives better. Not a choice that one might find a good decision because it provides financial reward. But the threat of punishment if one does not "volunteer".
And no...Of course I'm not for it.
Cure, Cure, Cure....*sigh*
July 22, 2008 - 12:21 ET by bassndudeOf course they are not going to say the words, now. Like past federal volunteers, it was never initialy mandated. But they were mandated after the program was already established. I bet you are aginst the draft. I would also wager that, in 1969 you would have moved to Canada to avoid it. But the draft, military service, was not mandatory untill after the draft was established as an emergency manpower issue. Then, presto...it became a mandatory thing. Are you willing to bet the other programs will not become mandatory? Due to manpower requirements?
Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!
Well yeah. Anything is
July 22, 2008 - 12:29 ET by Cureboy675Well yeah. Anything is possible. Its possible that a Martian meteorite will crash through the roof and land in my lap sometime in the next hour. But is it likely, no?
You're making assumptions that it will be a mandatory thing. If that's the case, anyday now I should be expecting that letter forcing me to work two years in Kenya for the Peace Corps.
As for your ignorant accusation that I would avoid the draft if at all possible. Personal attacks...Not so cool.
Accusation? Not at all.
July 22, 2008 - 13:47 ET by bassndudeAccusation? Not at all. Simply an observational conclusion arrived at by reading your posts on NB.
Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!
Hey. Fair enough. So
July 22, 2008 - 14:01 ET by Cureboy675Hey. Fair enough. So you'll forgive me if I come to an observational conclusion that you are a war-mongering, blood-lusting advocate of hate.
Don't worry mods...Its not an accusation.
My personal time.
July 22, 2008 - 13:13 ET by bsmarjWe work and after the year has gone by, we are forced to pay 35-50+ percent of our personal income to enrich other peoples lives.
"Not a choice that one might find a good decision"...
Cureboy, WE scare you? LOL.
July 22, 2008 - 13:42 ET by R D HelmNext time Obama gives a speech, listen to it very carefully.
There are two kinds of people in this country:
1) Those who believe this country is great because of its people.
2) Those who believe this country is great because of its government.
Obama is squarely in that latter goup.
And if you want to know why those of us value the freedom of the individual are more than just a little concerned about this national service stuff, read this.
And remember, many of the events described in that link occurred less than 70 years ago.
The truth is insensitive. - Neal Boortz
The outrageous conclusions
July 22, 2008 - 14:06 ET by Cureboy675The outrageous conclusions that you draw? The fact that you alone are smarter than everybody and that millions of Americans are blindly voting (or even better, full blown support) for a man who is secretly leading them to a Nazi State
Yep, pretty darn scary.
Cureboy, a common misconception is that Hitler was a righty.
July 22, 2008 - 13:10 ET by R D HelmHe was, in fact, a left-winger. So was Benito Mussolini. Just like Joseph Stalin, Mao, Ho and all the rest of the rouges of history.
NAZI was an acronym for Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei, or, as we know it, National Socialist German Worker's Party.
The differences between Nazism (which was essentially the same thing as Fascism) and Communism can be counted on one finger, and that difference is essentially this:
Communism is government control of government-owned resources.
Fascism is government control of privately* owned resources.
Under either system, the individual citizen is subservient to the state in all things, and only have whatever rights the state grants them.
This nation was founded on the opposite principle, where the central government was intended to remail rather small and reletavily powerless, as the bulk of the power was to lie with the individual states.
Smaller government is much easier for the people to control. As governments grow, they eventually get to a point where they are beyond the control of their citizens, and become an entity in and of themselves, accountable to no one.
That is pretty much what has happened to this country over the last sixty years, although the roots of it can be traced all the way back to the end of the Civil War.
* Fascists, however, have no problem nationalizing certain industries when they feel it will benefit the state.
The truth is insensitive. - Neal Boortz
Golly, R D...you mean there
July 22, 2008 - 13:51 ET by JerGolly, R D...you mean there hasn't been a single right-wing rogue [try saying that quickly three times] in all of recorded history? Not even Ghengis Khan? [Or as John F'n Kerry would say...Jenn-jus Khan]
Jer
Jer, LOL- My bad.
July 24, 2008 - 22:49 ET by R D HelmYeah, I left out not only Ghengis Khan, I also sctratched Attila the Hun, too.
Hey, I was just trying to keep it recent. :-)
The truth is insensitive. - Neal Boortz
You mean Genghis and the
July 25, 2008 - 00:12 ET by RESTLESS 1You mean Genghis and the Hun voted for Bush too?
Actually, Khan may not have been so bad. It seems as well, that those right of center have always been the tolerant ones:
Politics and economics
Main article: Organization of state under Genghis Khan
"The Mongol Empire was governed by a civilian and military code, called the Yassa, created by Genghis Khan. The Mongol Empire did not emphasize the importance of ethnicity and race in the administrative realm, instead adopting an approach grounded in meritocracy.
The exception was the role of Genghis Khan and his family. The Mongol
Empire was one of the most ethnically and culturally diverse empires in
history, as befitted its size. Many of the empire's nomadic inhabitants
considered themselves Mongols in military and civilian life, including Turks, Mongols, and others and included many diverse Khans of various ethnicities as part of the Mongol Empire such as Muhammad Khan.
There were tax exemptions for religious figures and, to some extent, teachers and doctors. The Mongol Empire practiced religious tolerance
to a large degree because Mongol tradition had long held that religion
was a very personal concept, and not subject to law or interference.[citation needed] Sometime before the rise of Genghis Khan, Ong Khan, his mentor and eventual rival, had converted to Nestorian Christianity.
Various Mongol tribes were Buddhist, Muslim, shamanist or Christian.
Religious tolerance was thus a well established concept on the Asian
steppe.
Modern Mongolian historians say that towards the end of his life, Genghis Khan attempted to create a civil state under the Great Yassa that would have established the legal equality of all individuals, including women.[16]
However, there is no contemporary evidence of this, or of the lifting
of discriminatory policies towards sedentary peoples such as the
Chinese. Women played a relatively important role in Mongol Empire and
in family, for example Torogene Khatun was briefly in charge of the Mongol Empire when next male Khagan was being chosen. Modern scholars refer to the alleged policy of encouraging trade and communication as the Pax Mongolica (Mongol Peace)."-wiki
"This
liberal would be all about socialize -- uh, uh, would be about
basically taking over and the government running all of your companies."-Maxine Waters 2008
Well, I guess that settles
July 25, 2008 - 03:51 ET by JerWell, I guess that settles it. All the "good guys" in history were conservatives, and all the "bad" ones were liberals.
I feel utterly shamed.
Jer
Those are all very good
July 22, 2008 - 13:54 ET by Cureboy675Those are all very good points. However I have never seen any indication of any Democrat advocating for such extreme behavior. Or nothing even close to that. The American people are not idiots. They know how to elect a Republican president and a Republican congress if they think such a choice is warranted. I've seen it happen and I ain't all that old.
But back to the original analogy that, somehow, some kind of volunteer agency organized at the federal level is comparable to the Hitler Youth? Or is it basically any entity organized at the federal level is inherently socialist? I'd love for Social Security to be declared inherently socialist and have that money back in my paycheck. I'd love for the federal income tax to be declared inherently socialist and have that money back in my paycheck...Despite the fact that money ends up funding the wars our government chooses to wage. The United States Military, for that matter. They've done remarkably well despite the fact that they are organized at the federal level and I have yet to see a United States soldier marching the streets threatening to take away some of my freedoms.
I just don't see how do-gooders being organized at the federal level is somehow analogous to a Communist state.
Cureboy, you have to realize that I am a libertarian.
July 24, 2008 - 23:13 ET by R D HelmWhich means that I believe in the primacy of the individual over that of any government.
I live my life by the rule that people should be able to do anything they wish, as long as what they do does not interfere with the life, liberty, or property of others, even if what they do is self-destructive to themselves.
I define government as force, period. Force that is used by some to coerce others into doing things they would not otherwise do. This does not even come close to meeting my definition of true freedom.
I have no problem with people volunteering for anything they like, but I am not at all comfortable with government being involved in any way. Soon, government might just decide that the number of "volunteers" is not high enough.
When the Nazis decided this, participation in the Hitler Youth became mandatory, thus requiring all German youth to "serve the state" by participating. That, in my judgment, was coerced servitude.
I don't know about you, but I own me, not the government.
Who owns you?
The truth is insensitive. - Neal Boortz
Cureboy, you are wrong
July 24, 2008 - 23:34 ET by jefflebowskiA great many Americans are idiots. That is why they vote style over substance. Jimmy Carter was elected because he had a nice smile and seemed nice when he was anything but. Obama stands a great chance because he will instill "change." But change can also be for the worse...as we will see if Obama is elected.
You give many Americans a great benefit of the doubt.
Jeff Lebowski
www.angrywhitedude.c...
Coerced Voluntarism - A True Story
July 22, 2008 - 11:17 ET by Dr_LibertyAt a place that I work at, some people (let's call the "sociologists" for argument sake) require other people (let's call them "sociology students") to learn about global hunger by volunteering their time in a food pantry in a nearby city. Of course, their compensation (let's call that "a grade") is partially dependent on them "volunteering."
To help us understand the wonders of volunteering for compensation, I (along with others) was taken on a tour of the food pantry and shown what the "volunteers" would be doing. In short, they would be putting cans of tuna, boxes of tuna helper and unused pumpkin mash into paper bags.* "Volunteers" would do this in a back room.
When asked whether "volunteers" would get to meet the people who picked up these paper bags of food and ask them about their plight, we were told that they would not be allowed to do that. "Volunteers" were not allowed in the front lobby where the food was picked up and they definitely were not to ask any questions of anybody coming in to pick up the food bags.** Thus, putting cans into bags is a way to learn about global hunger. Needless to say, several "volunteers" confided that they felt this was somewhat of a scam perpetrated on them. There were others who, though, who felt like they really made a difference.
Your taxes will soon be raise for this.
* This was before paper bags were dangerous to the environment.
** Looking through the door leading to the lobby, and seeing some of the people picking up bags, it would seem that "hunger" is now being defined as "slightly pudgy to waddling obese."
<insert witty signature here>
Obama's Youth,(Hitler's
July 22, 2008 - 11:22 ET by ForeverOnTheRightObama's Youth,(Hitler's Youth?), Youth of the DNC, Youth of The Big Brother it all smells of liberals pushing to control the minds of the people. It's Marxism/Nazism repackaged to sound nice.
Amen. The last thing we
July 22, 2008 - 11:30 ET by Cureboy675Amen. The last thing we want is the youth of this country having any part in the political process. I've always thought the democratic process should be scrapped once my generation is dead and buried.
Cureboy675, I am just trying
July 22, 2008 - 11:43 ET by ForeverOnTheRightCureboy675, I am just trying to say that this Service Nation thing has a strange and unconforable feel to in my gut. I don't understand the need for it. Your sounding sarcastic.
Yeah. But you made the leap
July 22, 2008 - 12:23 ET by Cureboy675Yeah. But you made the leap from Hitler's Youth to the Youth of the DNC. As if they were one in the same.
I'm assuming that there are organizations for Young Republicans, no? And I also assume that you guys aren't doing any brainwashing over there?
C-Boy, You seem to be
July 22, 2008 - 13:03 ET by ForeverOnTheRightC-Boy, You seem to be accepting of this ServiceNation stuff without a question. I question it because of it's source and because it means Big Government sticking it's nose into one more area of our lives. If Big Government is not Socialism repackaged it sure smells like it.
Yeah, it was a leap. I risk admitting that I expressed myself VERY poorly. But if the source and creator of this ServiceNation is liberal it can't help but be a liberally biased. The created most often takes on the nature of the creator, unless acted upon buy an outside force or influence.
C-Boy
July 22, 2008 - 11:51 ET by okiehawk44Cureboy - why don't you volunteer to show the rest of us how to lay your generation to rest?
OK. Not quite sure what
July 22, 2008 - 12:09 ET by Cureboy675OK. Not quite sure what that is supposed to mean. Clarify and I'll get back to you.
National Service is an
July 22, 2008 - 11:29 ET by SickofLibsNational Service is an excellent idea! We're all going to need something to occupy us after The Ascension in January.
An idle proletariat is a breeding ground for all kinds of bad stuff, and no better spear-carrier than the commies at Time. Will there be any dam-building like in 1933, cause I'm not really into 'manual labor'.
For conservatives who say coerced "volunteering" is wrong
July 22, 2008 - 11:56 ET by sarcasmoI totally agree with you. It's turning the word "volunteer" into NewSpeak faster than form 1040 already was.
Now, can someone who thinks this way please intellectually square that position (along with continued rhetorical support for smaller government) with support for "Faith Based Initiatives" (AKA welfare for churches) rather than keeping the camel's nose of our increasingly obese government the hell out of both tents? Thanks.
JMR
The tax & spend drug war looks racist in the real world.
Your answer
July 22, 2008 - 12:31 ET by Dr_LibertyThe Faith Based Iniative (FBI), an extension of Clinton's Charitable Choice program, is not popular among conservatives for the very reason that it is creating bigger government in an area where government should have no business.
The FBI has three main components, two of which deal with reducing regulatory barriers on faith-based service providers (e.g., those that deal with detox). Those components have been fairly popular with religious organizations as it is a "shrinking" of gov in that it reduces gov-imposed limitations on such groups.
The third component actually encourages religious groups to apply for gov grants. This would represent a growth of gov in the charity business (or a camel nose under the tent as you say). Ironically, this has NOT been a popular aspect of the FBI among its intended audience -- evangelical charities. Many evangelical charities are very suspicious about getting a gov grant because this might entail obeying certain regulations that they are not comfortable with, even despite the reduced regulations in the first two components. For instance, getting a gov grant may require certain hiring practices or labor regulations that religious groups are not comfortable with (e.g., having to hire an athiest in a Mormon charity group).
Also, and perhaps more importantly, a number of religious charities are worried that getting into the government grant business will lead them away from a connection with their volunteer and donor base. Getting a gov grant takes up lots of time, energy and other resources (trust me on that). That is less time, energy and resources devoted to cultivating the volunteer base. Religious charities are not only established to help people in need, but they are also designed to get people who can give of their time or money to have a more charitable heart. Focusing on gov grants would take away from the latter goal. (In economics, this is related to the "crowding out" effect.)
So, bottom line: The FBI has not been as successful as the Bush Administration has hoped (which is also why it might be a dud issue for Obama who has been talking about it recently). And many conservatives do NOT like this approach to encouraging volunteerism.
Volunteerism needs to come from within a person's heart for it to be most beneficial for both donor and recipient. The government should not be in the business of trying to change people's hearts.
(Yes, I understand tax policy creates loopholes for charitable giving and until there is a simple flat tax rate, I will support such charitable giving loopholes.)
<insert witty signature here>
sarc, just for the record, I, too, was opposed to the FBI idea.
July 22, 2008 - 13:14 ET by R D HelmThat is one place government has no business sticking its nose into.
The truth is insensitive. - Neal Boortz
The problem with both replies
July 22, 2008 - 14:56 ET by sarcasmoIs that I agree with both of you. I need to find someone here who is capable of the doublethink I described to try to explain the doublethink "logic" process, so that I make sparks fly out of yet another conservative's hair with my libertarian questions & pick an illogical argument apart.
Instead, you're both being quite logical, which is no damn fun at all for me. :) It was probably a sign for such doublethinkers when Obama took the "faith based initiatives" ball and ran with it, since the idea of tax money to people like Reverend Wright can give just about anyone the willies.
JMR
The tax & spend drug war looks racist in the real world.
Well, sarc
July 22, 2008 - 19:22 ET by Dr_LibertyHate to disappoint you, but there are still a lot of us conservatives that like the smaller government model of things, even if we don't buy into all what the Libertarian Party has to offer.
Although, I just re-read my post and realize how poorly written it was. We have had intermittent power outages here and I've been trying to write fast.
There is a growing body of economic literature showing that when the government steps in to try to do the work of previous volunteer groups, it actually decreases the overall level of volunteerism. One just need to look at Europe where private charitable giving is near non-existent.
<insert witty signature here>
Well, this doesn't disappoint me at all.
July 23, 2008 - 05:16 ET by sarcasmoBecause it's a point libertarians have been making, and conservatives have been ignoring, for literally decades... The disappointment is that it's taken so much time to get the point across that the process is now politically-polluting various churches, but I assure you -- the doublethinkers I referenced do exist. They've learned to be silent when I ask this kind of single standard question, but they exist.
JMR
The tax & spend drug war looks racist in the real world.
sarc, cut me some slack, will ya?
July 25, 2008 - 00:03 ET by R D HelmLOL-As I was replying directly to you, I didn't really think the fact that tax money being involved was something that I had to point out. :-)
The truth is insensitive. - Neal Boortz
I think I am already serving enough, thank you.
July 22, 2008 - 12:03 ET by JohnMcGrewUnder Obama, my net tax burden will likely peak 50% of my income. This basically means that over half of my working hour/day/week/year will ulitmately be spent "on issues like poverty, climate change and education" without me even leaving my office or reporting to an indoctrination center. I think I've served enough, thank you.
Excellent comment
July 22, 2008 - 12:35 ET by Dr_LibertyFew people understand that money is simply a convenient store of value and represents "work" and other forms of "created value." If we still lived in a barter economy, without money, government taxation would come in the form of having us provide physical labor -- e.g., digging ditches or laying asphalt. This was the nature of taxation during feudal times -- a serf owed a specific amount of work to the lord each year. Indentured servitude works the same way. So, our tax money represents our "work" for the government. <insert witty signature here>
Re-Education Camps will set us straight...
July 22, 2008 - 12:47 ET by ledurchiIt starts as "volunteering". Then the volunteers are permitted "privileges" by the government that are not available to those who are classified as non-volunteers. Everybody is happy since everybody has chosen their lot - except that's not quite it. The abuses of privileges by those who enjoy or administer them increase exponentially. Soon a new class develops of "deserving" volunteers, sponsored and protected by the government, who have figured out how to work the system. Who pays for this? The lazy, selfish, hardworking non-volunteers. A new bureaucracy is created to suck capitol directly from producers to feed the good works of the saintly volunteers. Do not complain. The non-volunteer is not blessed with the MSM gravitas to complain.
Progressives/Liberals/Lunatics - leave me alone. If you want to volunteer, go ahead. People do it every day. Just leave me (and my money) the hell alone!
P.S. I am selling "Volunteer Credits" 'a la Algore to any limosene liberals who are interested...
You guys are a little
July 22, 2008 - 13:17 ET by balboaYou guys are a little overly suspicious, aren't you?
Maybe, maybe not. But are
July 22, 2008 - 13:22 ET by ForeverOnTheRightMaybe, maybe not. But are you too accepting of this ServiceNation?
I think the key here is the
July 22, 2008 - 20:35 ET by balboaI think the key here is the word "volunteer."
Singing in a different key...
July 23, 2008 - 06:33 ET by ledurchiSorta like when the states which did not voluntarily raise the minimum drinking age from 18 to 21 back in the '80s and were denied access to federal funds. Same with voluntarily lowering the "Driving while intoxicated" minimum from .10 to .08. Or how 'bout voluntarily lowering the speed limit to 55. Once the federal government becomes involved, incentives become the driving force. Coercion tends to give a new meaning to the word “Volunteer”.
Yeah and those were all
July 23, 2008 - 09:19 ET by balboaYeah and those were all such horrible changes...
Actually, they were, Bal.
July 23, 2008 - 20:43 ET by sarcasmoIncreasing federal control is evil, and this country doesn't need more of it. If they were all such good ideas, the states individually would have wanted to implement them voluntarily, right? Why the coercion advocacy???
JMR
The tax & spend drug war looks racist in the real world.
If they were all
July 23, 2008 - 20:51 ET by balboaIf they were all such good ideas, the states individually would havewanted to implement them voluntarily, right?
Not necessarily. I'm sure there were factions within those states that didn't want any of those changes and lobbied hard against them.
So Bal, you only believe in
July 24, 2008 - 23:50 ET by RESTLESS 1So Bal, you only believe in the sovereignity of the states when they do what YOU want them to do?
"This
liberal would be all about socialize -- uh, uh, would be about
basically taking over and the government running all of your companies."-Maxine Waters 2008
Overly suspicious?
July 22, 2008 - 13:33 ET by ledurchiFrom the ServiceNation Web Site:
"ServiceNation organizing committee member Music National Service Initiative was featured in the Huffington Post! !"
Any group featured in the Huffington Post gets me that way (overly suspicious).
ledurchi, With that bit of
July 22, 2008 - 13:45 ET by ForeverOnTheRightledurchi, With that bit of info, I'd say we are NOT being overly suspicious.
National Service
July 22, 2008 - 20:09 ET by cobolpoetCOBOL poet
OK. No use kvetching about it. The Annointed One has decreed it, so we're all going to become paid volunteers (I had a tough time typing that). I only have one question: I suffer a chronic illness that has left me completely disabled. Can I purchase "volunteerism credits" to get out of this service requirement? Or won't The Messiah even leave me with that much of my comfort zone?
Perfect Volunteer Opportunity
July 23, 2008 - 02:54 ET by Full MonteI have 4 perfect opportunities for someone who really wants to make a difference in their country (I know because I have been a volunteer and loving it for the past 22 years): US Air Force, US Army, US Marine Corp, US Navy.
"If everyone is thinking alike then someone's not thinking" - General George S. Patton
Thank you for "making a
July 23, 2008 - 03:09 ET by JerThank you for "making a difference" for the past 22 years.
Jer
"Time proposed ten
July 24, 2008 - 23:47 ET by RESTLESS 1"Time proposed ten different ideas for federally-supported national
service, although they insisted it was not mandatory service, despite
their lament about the end of the draft."
Hmm, I wonder how they plan to fund all of this volunteering? HEY, THAT'S MY WALLET. GET OUT OF THERE!!
"This
liberal would be all about socialize -- uh, uh, would be about
basically taking over and the government running all of your companies."-Maxine Waters 2008