Because these words make more sense when viewed in context...
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
The Factors
Posts
The Fans
Blog Archive
-
▼
2008
(123)
-
▼
November
(19)
- Follow the globe-trotting box
- Who's *not* going to get bailed out?
- Soft Money Suit
- Nebraska's Camel
- More conservatism
- Signs the the rhetorical cold war has only just st...
- Bothered but listening
- The whole video
- Why should this not bother me?
- Conservative
- Amusing
- Overstated cases
- By What Standard Does the President Govern?
- My Republic
- Why McCain Supports Should Be Hopeful
- An exit-poll...
- Transition
- The Thin End Of the Wedge
- A quick thought on "the right to vote"
-
▼
November
(19)
12 comments:
As I commented in the previous post:
If we want public service programs to help people become involved in their nation, why not [just] expand community service programs or public works? Why create an entity that has [more] power to use force to deprive the liberty and possibly the lives of American citizens?
I ask these questions because I see the potential for two wrong things in what Obama proposes: first, just because his overall idea is sound does not make this specific proposal right. Second, whether Obama's own intentions are noble or otherwise, just like the Republican elimination of the filibuster would have eventually come back to haunt them (HT: David), so to could the creation of a benign national police force come back to haunt us all.
My point here may also be that we need to scrutinize what Obama is doing just as surely as so many did with Bush. Just because some people like Obama does not make him any less prone to the potential for megalomania and corruption than any other person in such a position of power.
Finally, I asked the original question because I am still bothered by Obama's ongoing suggestion that so much authority, control, and power be concentrated in the hands of so few. I believe this will be my ongoing point of opposition to Obama and his administration, especially if he makes the potentially catastrophic national security decisions he seems likely to make upon taking office.
Where are you getting that he's creating "an entity that has [more] power to use force to deprive the liberty and possibly the lives of American citizens?"
Um, I think it is the "force" in national security force, but I could be wrong.
So you're extrapolating? Because I was wondering if there was a source I was overlooking other than the speech...
Also, "We cannot continue to rely only on our military in order to achieve th national security objectives we've set. We've gotta have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well funded."
It's a little known secret that the primary function of the military is to deprive people of their liberty and lives (yes, at the end of the day military force is about killing). What does that make the function of a civilian national security force parallel?
No, no other source than his words and theoretical conjecture.
For the record, I would blast Bush on this too just like I opposed the formation of the Department of Homeland Security, though unfortunately that was before I was blogging to document my opposition.
I'm pretty sure my conjecture is supported by parallel fact:
Consider agencies like the ATF and the DEA. In each case they were optimistically created with specific scope and given the ability to deprive people of their liberty and lives. Both agencies are guilty of spectacular instances of using that ability against people who were ultimately innocent of crimes within their scope.
While I agree with you about the ultimate result of military force, I think the interpretation here depends a great deal on your view of the full scope of the national security equation. I'm still not 100% sure that what you're discussing in any way reflects the president-elect's intent if taken in the context of the speech. I suppose that if you believe that there are measurable and actionable social, economic and domestic policies that are rolled into the overall security of our nation within and without, then a well-funded domestic organization
in charge of the homefront makes perfect sense and contributes to the national defense in a way that falls outside the National Guard's purview.
I can't help but think that Blogger would be better if it updated conversations as new comments are added, ala Internet Messenger.
LOL
Be that as it may, I still think you're injecting your fears of what he might do into a vague quote taken out of context on Youtube.
I agree with you that this all might be out of context, hence my phrasing of the original post as a question. although my concern is actually less about Obama than the future potential for abuse. Imagine what Lincoln or FDR might have done with a national security force.
I think it bears watching. Don't worry, I've got this one... :)
"Homeland Security Corps to help communities plan, prepare for and respond to emergencies.
Participants will include full-time members who work with communities to help them plan and prepare for emergency response as well as a cadre of volunteers who can be mobilized to help in a national disaster. The Corps would draw on the experience of the National Civilian Community Corps, and work in cooperation with the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). As a U.S. senator, Obama introduced legislation to create a national emergency health professional volunteer corps to ensure there is a ready pool of volunteer doctors and nurses who are willing, trained, and certified to serve in times of
disaster. Obama’s planned Homeland Security Corps would build on that effort."
http://obama.3cdn.net/3b3158f85f69a39217_hydpmvzbb.pdf
Interesting. I did not get around to reading that before. I'm still skeptical, but I am willing to give the idea time to develop.
Post a Comment