Conference back40::soapbox

| "Because of these risks, many would-be volunteers are simply turning away.
| Fear of lawsuits has adversely affected recruitment of direct-service
| volunteers and members of nonprofit boards," he said.
    
    Bull.  The "Volunteer Protection Act" doesn't protect volunteers.
    They already have vast quantities of protections.
    
    This is just a way to protect the Dr. John Silbers of the world.
    He didn't give back to any community for serving on the board of
    Adelphi.  He was paid well for serving on the board of Adelphi,
    *AND* his crony was paid well for serving as President.
    
    								-mr. bill

    BULL...!
    
    I know of a lawyer who cannot be on any NP board because it is written
    into his MP liability insurance policy!

|   BULL...!                                                
|  
|   I know of a lawyer who cannot be on any NP board because it is written
|   into his MP liability insurance policy!
    
    And I know of lawyers who *are* on non-profit boards.
    
    But the point is this bill has *nothing* to do with little league coaches
    (direct-service volunteers).  The liability they have today is for
    willful or wanton misconduct.  And that's the liability they have
    tomorrow with the "Volunteer Protection Act."
    
    They can be wrongly named in suits today.  They can be wrongly
    named in suits tomorrow.  And lawyers representing plaintiffs will
    still risk sanction for wrongly naming parties in suits.
    
    Nothing changes.
    
    
    Except for non-profit board members.
    
    
    								-mr. bill

>    Nothing changes.
>    Except for non-profit board members.
>    								-mr. bill
    
    That is not a change? Or a risk today...?

|>    Nothing changes.
|>    Except for non-profit board members.
|
|    That is not a change? Or a risk today...?
    
    Is this the third time I'm saying the same thing?
    
    Nothing changes for direct-service volunteers.
    
    Something changes for non-profit board members, if they aren't
    volunteers.
    
    The bill is misnamed "The Volunteer Protection Act."
    
    It has absolutely nothing to do with protecting volunteers.
    It has everything to do with protecting non-profit board members.
    
    
    Dr. John Silber represents everything this bill protects.  If you
    believe that he should have been able to vote himself and his friends
    massive raises, and if you believe he should have been able to vote
    himself and his friends the best legals minds money can buy, all
    paid for by the non-profit's dime, then you support this bill.
    
    If you believe Dr. John Silber ought to be personally liable for some
    of his misdeeds at Adelphi, then you don't support this bill.
    
    (For what it's worth, the new board at Adelphi seems to think he is
    personally liable.)
    
    								-mr. bill

  <<< Note 14.13682 by PERFOM::LICEA_KANE "when it's comin' from the left" >>>

>    This is just a way to protect the Dr. John Silbers of the world.
>    He didn't give back to any community for serving on the board of
>    Adelphi.  He was paid well for serving on the board of Adelphi,
>    *AND* his crony was paid well for serving as President.
 
	In reading the text of HR1167 (available at http://thomas.loc.gov), 
	it seems clear that anyone who is a paid member of a non-profit 
	board, or is a paid employee of a non-profit organization would not 
	be covered under this proposed law.

	Check under Section 5 (Definitions) Paragraph (6) ( Volunteer).

	Bill, your views on this bill are not in any way colored by your
	close association with an attorney, are they?

Jim

  <<< Note 14.13685 by PERFOM::LICEA_KANE "when it's comin' from the left" >>>

>    They can be wrongly named in suits today.  They can be wrongly
>    named in suits tomorrow.  And lawyers representing plaintiffs will
>    still risk sanction for wrongly naming parties in suits.
 
	How many lawyers are sanctioned in any given year for this
	infraction?

Jim

    Lawyer in nice suit: Man! This is a hell of a great party!
    
    

  <<< Note 14.13688 by PERFOM::LICEA_KANE "when it's comin' from the left" >>>

>    Something changes for non-profit board members, if they aren't
>    volunteers.
 
	You might want to read the text. It very specifically covers only
	those that are volunteers as defined in the bill (compensation
	limited to $300/year).

>    Dr. John Silber represents everything this bill protects.  If you
>    believe that he should have been able to vote himself and his friends
>    massive raises,

	If he, or his friends exceeded $300 per year in compensation, then
	this bill is not about them.

>    If you believe Dr. John Silber ought to be personally liable for some
>    of his misdeeds at Adelphi, then you don't support this bill.
 
	It appears that this bill is not about paid board members, so whoever
	John Silber or Aldelphi is should have no bearing on support or
	opposition to this bill.

Jim

|	In reading the text of HR1167 (available at http://thomas.loc.gov), 
|	it seems clear that anyone who is a paid member of a non-profit 
|	board, or is a paid employee of a non-profit organization would not 
|	be covered under this proposed law.
    
    You are quite incorrect.  You can be compensated for service on a
    non-profit board and be covered by this law.  See "(other than
    reimbursement or allowance for expenses actually incurred);"
    
    You can have an extravagent allowance, as the board members at
    Adelphi were permitted.  They just had to spend the allowance
    extravagently.  (As they did.  Oh, they did.)
    
|	Bill, your views on this bill are not in any way colored by your
|	close association with an attorney, are they?
    
    Oddly enough, if my view on this bill ought to be colored in any way,
    it should be colored to support the bill.
    
    (See http://www.specbench.org/gpc/publish/97office.html )
    
    								-mr. bill
                                             

|	How many lawyers are sanctioned in any given year for this
|	infraction?

    Not enough.
    								-mr. bill
                                             

|   	You might want to read the text. It very specifically covers only
|	those that are volunteers as defined in the bill (compensation
|	limited to $300/year).
    
    Bahahah.  Sometimes, you are so naive.  First class tickets, nights
    out at the theater, a suite in the best hotel in the city (for a
    university located on Long Island) - all far more than $300/year, all
    permitted by the bill.
    
|	If he, or his friends exceeded $300 per year in compensation, then
|	this bill is not about them.
    
    It is very much about them.
    
|	It appears that this bill is not about paid board members, so whoever
|	John Silber or Aldelphi is should have no bearing on support or
|	opposition to this bill.                                         
    
    The language in the bill could be easily tightened to exclude the
    John Silbers of the world.  I'll bet that it won't be.  Because
    this bill is *NOT* about people being afraid to volunteer for the
    board at the local Boys and Girls club.  It's about the John Silbers
    of the world.
               
    								-mr. bill

   <<< Note 851.11 by PERFOM::LICEA_KANE "when it's comin' from the left" >>>

>    You are quite incorrect.  You can be compensated for service on a
>    non-profit board and be covered by this law.  See "(other than
>    reimbursement or allowance for expenses actually incurred);"
 
	True, maybe I look at this a little differently since I don't
	know about Aldelphi and my experience with "expenses actually
	incurred" run to buying a roll of stamps for the CSABR newsletter.

>    You can have an extravagent allowance, as the board members at
>    Adelphi were permitted.  They just had to spend the allowance
>    extravagently.  (As they did.  Oh, they did.)
 
	This would appear to come under IRS regulations, more than liability
	laws.

Jim

 Z   If you believe Dr. John Silber ought to be personally liable for
 Z   some of his misdeeds at Adelphi, then you don't support this bill.
    
    John Silber is the only academia big wheel I have any use for in this
    commonwealth.  

I thought Hawaii was the place for acadamia nuts.

|    	True, maybe I look at this a little differently....
    
    Which is good.  Here's the way Dr. John Silber looks at the matter:
    
    	"Many institutions go to great lengths to augment executive
    	 compensation in a manner that does not require any formal
   	 reporting."
    
    Unlike some other folks associated with Dr. John Silber, I don't
    have to say "I'm not making this up."
    
    								-mr. bill

   <<< Note 851.11 by PERFOM::LICEA_KANE "when it's comin' from the left" >>>

>    You are quite incorrect.  You can be compensated for service on a
>    non-profit board and be covered by this law.  See "(other than
>    reimbursement or allowance for expenses actually incurred);"
 
	Oh, BTW. It is you that is incorrect. Under this law COMPENSATION
	is, in fact, limited to $300 per year. Reimbursement for
	expenses is not, legally, compensation.

Jim

   <<< Note 851.17 by PERFOM::LICEA_KANE "when it's comin' from the left" >>>

>    Which is good.  Here's the way Dr. John Silber looks at the matter:
    
>    	"Many institutions go to great lengths to augment executive
>    	 compensation in a manner that does not require any formal
>   	 reporting."
 
	Which, as I mentioned, seems to be a matter for the IRS Enforcement
	Division.

Jim

|   Reimbursement for expenses is not, legally, compensation.
    
    Sorry, you are still quite incorrect.
    
    	(A) compensation (other than reimbursement or allowance for
    	expenses actually incurred); or
    
    Think for a moment of the simple manner of reimbursement for automobile
    travel.  You could reimburse some token amount per mile.  You could
    reimburse actual cost per mile no matter the cost.  You could
    reimburse actual cost per mile up to a ceiling.  You could give
    a frugal stipend for travel.  You could give a generous stipend
    for travel.
    
    All of them are used.  All of them are defensible.
    
    But some of them are taxable income (as defined by the IRS).
    
    As defined by *this* law, all of them are compensation exempt from the
    $300 ceiling.
    
    								-mr. bill

    Mr. Bill is the only academia nut in this conference I have any use
    for.

|	Which, as I mentioned, seems to be a matter for the IRS Enforcement
|	Division.
    
    Most likely not.  If a university board decides to reimburse
    a college President for artwork he has purchased, the IRS Enforcement
    Division could care a whit - so long as any taxes due on that
    compensation are payed.  But that's what tax adders are for, aren't
    they?
    
    
    BTW, Silber's claim is that Boston University listed a higher
    fraction of his compensation as compenstation.  It wasn't that he
    was actually paid more than other university presidents, it is
    that a higher percentage of his pay was called compensation.
    And that's why he consistently showed up on the top of
    compensation lists.
    
    Or, to put it more accurately.  He claims BU lied less than other
    schools, and that's why John Silber *appeared* to be so highly paid.
    
    Unfortuately, Dr. John Silber never said "I'm not making this up."
    
    								-mr. bill

   <<< Note 851.22 by PERFOM::LICEA_KANE "when it's comin' from the left" >>>

>    Most likely not.  If a university board decides to reimburse
>    a college President for artwork he has purchased, the IRS Enforcement
>    Division could care a whit - so long as any taxes due on that
>    compensation are payed.  But that's what tax adders are for, aren't
>    they?
 
	Very different than reimbursement for expenses. Such a payment
	is, and should be classified as, income. Any other arrangement
	should bring down the wrath of the IRS.

	Now, we have all of our volunteers sign a liability release (I
	know, not worth the paper they are written on) and we carry
	an extra (relatively expensive) $1M rider on our homeowner's
	insurance.

	None of our volunteers receive any compensation for services.
	They are reimbursed for verified expenses (Vet bills, stationery,
	phone calls, etc.)

	But doing dog rescue carries with it a fair amount a liability
	exposure (one really bad dogbite and that Million will evaporate
	pretty quickly). It would be kind of nice to reduce that exposure
	to situation of "willful misconduct", as opposed to just plain
	bad luck.

	THe fact that John Silber might benefit also, it not a reason for
	me to be opposed to this bill. In fact, if you really checked I bet
	that you would find that the majority of non-profits are more like
	CSABR than Adelphi.

Jim

|	Very different than reimbursement for expenses.
    
    How?  The President decided that in order to do his job, he needed
    artwork for his home.  Lots of it.  Good stuff.  The board gave him
    discretion to make such a judgement, and then agreed with his
    judgement when it was called into question.
    
    To them, it was a reimbursement for expenses.
    
    I don't know how they handled the tax issues.
    
|	Now, we have all of our volunteers sign a liability release (I
|	know, not worth the paper they are written on)
    
    Uh, if a dog bit someone, chances that one of your volunteers
    (a direct service volunteer) could be successfully sued for just
    being at the scene are zero.  Yet the bill's author makes the
    claim that CSABR would get more direct service volunteers if
    this law passes.  How do you figure?
    
|	But doing dog rescue carries with it a fair amount a liability
|	exposure (one really bad dogbite and that Million will evaporate
|	pretty quickly). It would be kind of nice to reduce that exposure
|	to situation of "willful misconduct", as opposed to just plain
|	bad luck.
    
    But that has very little to do with for profit or non-profit.  We
    carry liability insurance for Erica's studio for just about the
    same reason.  It would be nice if an accident in her studio only
    left us exposed to liability for "willful misconduct" as opposed to
    just plain bad luck.  We carried liability insurance when her
    studio was in a non-profit building.  And we still carry it now
    that her studio is in a for-profit building.
    
    Does it *really* matter to someone falling down in a studio if
    they fell down in a non-profit building or a for-profit building?
    
    And even in your case, does it *really* matter to someone bitten by a
    dog at a for-profit dog service or a non-profit dog service?  The
    only question is why doesn't CSABR carry the liability insurance
    instead of you?  (Or in addition to you if you are a belt and
    suspenders sort of guy like I am.)
    
|	THe fact that John Silber might benefit also, it not a reason for
|	me to be opposed to this bill.
    
    It's not that John Silber might benefit.  It's that the people who
    John Silber (weasle word alledgedly) harmed might be penalized.
    
|       In fact, if you really checked I bet
|	that you would find that the majority of non-profits are
|       more like CSABR than Adelphi.
    
    Which is why I find the bill so incredible.  Like I said, it would
    take very little effort to fix the faults.  I doubt those faults will
    be fixed.
    
    But the point still is.  This seems to me to be a solution in search of
    a problem.  I simply don't believe that you'd see volunteers standing
    in line at your door if this bill passes.
    
    								-mr. bill

   <<< Note 851.24 by PERFOM::LICEA_KANE "when it's comin' from the left" >>>

>    How?  The President decided that in order to do his job, he needed
>    artwork for his home.  Lots of it.  Good stuff.  The board gave him
>    discretion to make such a judgement, and then agreed with his
>    judgement when it was called into question.
 
	Then the Board needs to have its collective head examined.

>    Uh, if a dog bit someone, chances that one of your volunteers
>    (a direct service volunteer) could be successfully sued for just
>    being at the scene are zero.  Yet the bill's author makes the
>    claim that CSABR would get more direct service volunteers if
>    this law passes.  How do you figure?
 
	I should have been more clear. The backbone of our group
	are our Foster Homes. People that take dogs into their
	homes, give them basic training and then screen potential
	adopters. The new family picks the dog up from the Foster.
	A bit more than just being at the scene.

	It's hard to get Fosters for a number of reasons, only one
	is the increased risk of liability that bringing a basically
	unknown dog into your home entails.
   
>    But that has very little to do with for profit or non-profit.  We
>    carry liability insurance for Erica's studio for just about the
>    same reason.  

	Well, in a "for profit" there is, or there is supposed to be
	income to offset this expense. With a non-profit, particularly	
	the thousands of tiny non-profits like CSABR, there is very
	little income that doesn't go directly to running the show.

	The latest review of our books show that we had income from 
	all sources of about $7000 last year. Expenses ran in at
	a shade over $6500. By the time we renew the maintainence
	agreement on the copier that was donated by a local office
	supply store, the cupboard will be pretty bare again.

	Of course, this doesn't count the stuff that volunteers just
	"give" (in addition to their time, of course). Like the second
	phone line and the voicemail I pay for to use as a "hotline", 
	or the dogfood that Fosters buy to feed their charges, or the
	bowls, leashes, collars, grooming, etc. that folks just kick
	in without re-imbursement (we do try to keep track so that they
	can at least take it off their taxes since we are 501(c)3).

>It would be nice if an accident in her studio only
>    left us exposed to liability for "willful misconduct" as opposed to
>    just plain bad luck.

	The risk you take when it's a business, offest by the potential
	financial rewards. With a non-profit, there is NO expectation
	of financial reward. In fact CSABR has personally cost me over
	$5k in the last two years of operation. The rewards for us
	have nothing to do with money.

>    But the point still is.  This seems to me to be a solution in search of
>    a problem.  I simply don't believe that you'd see volunteers standing
>    in line at your door if this bill passes.
 
	No, but one stumbling block is removed. We have had a difficult time
	getting people to serve on a BoD, primarily because of the liability
	issue. For someone who is truly donating their time, it's not worth
	the risk. 

	Since I'm ignorant concerning this Silber/Aldelpi situation,
	can you give me the Reader's Digest version on what Silber did
	wrong? And who is suing (planning to sue) him and on what grounds?


Jim

    .24
    
    I think if you were to really get involved with volunteer organizations
    you would find that many people have backed away from participation and
    leadership because of liability issues.  If this bill does anything to
    insulate these people from law suits, then it needs to be passed.  If
    it has some weaknesses then those can be modified, but to oppose
    protection of volunteers because you have a personal axe to grind
    against someone, is really shortsighted.
    

    
    Sued and lost!
    
    I owe Silber!  To the loan arranger, and pronto. 

|   I think if you were to really get involved with volunteer organizations
|   you would find that many people have backed away from participation and
|   leadership because of liability issues.
    
    I have gotten involved with volunteer organizations, both private and
    professional.  I've not found people spending hours after hour worrying
    about getting personally sued.  I see it as a non-issue.
    
    (There are far bigger deterrents to serving on a board than liability.)
    
|   but to oppose protection of volunteers because you have a personal axe
|   to grind against someone, is really shortsighted.
    
    Is it really impossible to understand an example?
    
    One noter thinks I've got a "close association with a lawyer" another
    thinks I've personally got it in for Dr. John Silber.
    
    (Hint.  I don't have a "close association" with anyone who might have
    been harmed by Dr. John Silber's (alledged) actions at Adelphi.)
    
    
    I don't oppose this bill because I've got a personal axe to grind with
    Dr. John Silber.
                   
    It's just the Adelphi board is the best PUBLIC example of a non-profit
    board gone nuts in recent memory.  To get the State Board of Regents
    to step in and fire all but one member of a non-profit board is
    astounding.  But then again, it's also highly usual to see a board
    vote to use non-profit funds for personal grudge suits.
    
    Pardon me if I use a PUBLIC extreme example of the reason why
    non-profit board members should be held liable for their actions.
    
    -----
    
    Summary of Adelphi.
    
    The board of Adelphi had a dream.  To turn Harvard University into
    "The Adelphi of Massachusetts."
    
    Dream big, I guess.
    
    
    To fulfill this dream, they hired the best President money could buy.
    Unfortunately, he was not available, and he was serving on the board.
    But it so happened they found their President, Peter Diamandopoulos,
    who was a close personal friend of one of the board members, Dr. John
    Silber.
    
    Diamondopoulos' admitted compensation seemed rather extravagent to some,
    since it was second only to Dr. John Silber's admitted compensation.
    Diamondopoulos' performance, however, was less open to question.
    
    Adelphi's enrollment went down during his tenure while tuition (90%
    of the funds for the school are tuition) went up.  Since enrollment
    was down, teachers of course had to be let go.  Some argued that
    this is the source of the conflict.  Other's said it was an ideological
    war, since some teachers didn't want to get with the Western
    Civilization program.  Still others said both.  Some said there
    was a personal axe to grind with Dr. John Silber.  I don't know
    if anyone said there was some close personal association with a
    laywer that was the source.
    
    
    But other's noted while a smaller percentage of student tuition was
    going to things that student's might value, a larger percentage
    was going to adminstration (while the school was downsizing,
    administration was up 300%) and perquisites for the President.
    (Such as Miro, Picasso and Calder originals, needed, of course,
    since these purchases "enhanced the elegance of the institution.")
    
    There were the two residences for the President.  The extravagent
    furnishings for the President.  The artwork for the President.
    The parties for the President.  And of course, the trips back
    home to Greece for the President and his family (first class).
    
    
    Now, if there was some measurable improvement in the school as a result
    of these expenses perhaps they might have passed muster.  But
    donations to the school were down.  Enrollment was down.  Admission
    standards were not rising.  Then the Olin Foundation did not
    renew its donations to the university.  All and all, a very good
    commuter school was going nowhere fast for a lot of money.  
    
    
    Then the board started voting non-profit money be used to "defend"
    board members from "slander."  (That is, they voted to sue their
    critics with school money.)
    
    
    A criminal investigations of *some* of the board members was started
    by the New York State Attorney General for conflicts of interest.
    
    An investigation of the board members by the New York State Regents
    was also started (with invitation from the board).  Some say the
    board mistakenly believed that if the Regents got involved, the AG
    would back off.  The Regents got involved, the AG did not back off.
    
    This resulted in the Regents finding cause to remove all but one
    of the members of the board.  The board first voted to fight
    (with Adelphi money of course) then magnamousily stepped down
    in the interest of the institution.  As far as the criminal
    investigation, that's still in progress.
    
    Oh yes, the new board fired the President.  They are proceeding with
    civil actions against the former board members.  The earliest pickings
    were to win settlements from board members to reimburse the school
    for most of the legal expenses they ran up while suing opponents
    and suing to hold their board seats.
    
    								-mr. bill

    .28
    
    The information about silber is interesting, but I don't see anything
    in the proposed legislation that would exempt anyone in similar
    circumstances for not being liable for gross negligence, which as you
    presented the facts seems to be the case.
    
    As I read the bill it seems to be directed to all of the small
    volunteer organizations and participants that now have to carry
    burdensome insurance and run the risk of being sued.
    
    I will give you an example of what I hope this bill will protect
    against.  I was the Commisioner of our softball league for three years
    and decided to step down to have a break.  The following season a kid
    broke her leg sliding into base, and even though the injury was really
    not that significant, the family sued the league, coach and
    commisioner, all of whom were unpaid volunteers.  Even though the case
    was ultimately decided in favor of the league and theothers named in
    the suit, it cost the coach and the commisioner a tidy little sum. 
    Needless to say, I did not chose to return as commisioner and the
    league had a very difficult time finding someone to run the league.
    
    If this legislation takes even one step toward eliminating this type of
    extortion due to accident, then I am 100% behind it.
    

    
    .27
    
    you had these bottled up for two weeks, didn't you?
    
    agagagagag

|   The information about silber is interesting, but I don't see anything
|   in the proposed legislation that would exempt anyone in similar
|   circumstances for not being liable for gross negligence, which as you
|   presented the facts seems to be the case.
    
    You're partly right and partly wrong here.
    
    Section 4(b) says that Adelphi can indeed go after their own
    board.  (So Jim could sue his volunteers, just they couldn't sue him.)
    
    But section 4(a) says that nobody but Adelphi can sue the board
    in this case.
    
    
    Was Dr. John Silber acting within the scope of the his responsibilities
    in the nonprofit organization at the time of the act or omission?
    
    Yes.
    
    Was the harm Dr. John Silber (alledgedly) caused by willful or criminal
    misconduct?
    
    No.
    
    Was the harm Dr. John Silber (alledgedly) caused by flagrant
    indifference to the rights or safety of the individual harmed?
    
    No.
    
    Near as I can tell, none of the board to this day has a clue that
    they did anything wrong.  Dr. John Silber thinks his dream of out
    Harvarding Harvard was realistic.  He would have done it at BU if
    not for the stupid board there.  Adelphi *could* have out Harvarded
    Harvard as far as he's concerned.  The only reason it didn't achieve
    his goal is because of *those* people over there were saboteurs.
    
    
    Was he acting outside the scope of his responsibilities?  Clearly
    not.  Was his his conduct criminal?  Nobody has accused Dr. John
    Silber of criminal conduct.  As for willful misconduct?  Absolutely
    not, Adelphi truly needed that artwork!  Did he have a flagrant
    disregard for the rights of the individuals harmed?  Certainly not,
    he knew what was best for them!
    
    
    Do you really want the hurdle to lawsuits raised to *THIS* extreme
    height?
    
    								-mr. bill

    .31
    
    I want lawsuits in these instances limited to a responsible individual
    held to their fiduciary responsibility in the conduct of their duties. 
    If an individual does not meet the fiduciary responsibilities then
    there are already laws in place to deal with such instances.  this
    applies to the boards as well.
    
    What I want to see is organizations like the scouts, little leagues,
    etc and their volunteers protected from the sue-happy environment we
    have developed in this country.  Any laws that protect people and make
    the paracites responsible for their actions, including attorneys, is
    fine with me.
    
     I will even go so far as to ignore some flagrant actions to insure
    that the overwhelming majority of simple, honest folks don't get
    screwed.  If this offends you because of Silber, so be it, but I will
    support any efforts to stop the current insanity in our legal system.
     

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Monday April 28 6:59 AM EDT 

    Political Leaders Urge Rebirth of Civic Spirit

    PHILADELPHIA (Reuter) - Four men who have led the United States for
    most of the last quarter-century meet at the cradle of U.S. liberty and
    democracy Monday to try to galvanize the citizenry into helping solve
    the country's problems. 


    Joining President Clinton and former Presidents George Bush, Jimmy
    Carter and Gerald Ford at historic Independence Hall will be two men
    expected to vie for U.S. leadership at the dawn of the new century --
    Vice President Al Gore and retired Gen. Colin Powell. 



    The unusual bipartisan gathering at the place where the U.S. founding
    fathers created a new nation is likely to be the oratorical highpoint
    of a three-day summit on volunteerism under way here. 



    Clinton, according to aides, will offer some new ideas for encouraging
    volunteerism. They include creating 50,000 new slots in his Americorps
    national service program over the next five years by getting businesses
    to pair up with non-profit do-good organizations to pay most of the
    cost. 



    "By the year 2002, the Clinton administration will have given more
    young people a chance to serve in Americorps than served in the entire
    four-decade history of the Peace Corps," a White House official said. 



    The official, who asked not to be identified, said Clinton would also
    announce $20 million in grants to 17 states to aid college students who
    agree to work as police in return for their scholarships. 



    "I want to redefine the meaning of citizenship in America," Clinton
    said Sunday at a pep rally for volunteers who helped clean up a poor,
    largely black neighborhood in north Philadelphia. 



    "To be a good citizen you have to obey the law; you've got to go to
    work or be in school; you've got to pay your taxes and -- oh yes --
    you've got to serve in your community to help make it a better place,"
    he said. 



    After the rally, Clinton and Gore, along with their wives Hillary and
    Tipper, painted over graffiti on the outside wall of a building housing
    an indoor swimming pool. 



    Bush and Carter and their wives provided elbow grease in covering up
    graffiti elsewhere in the neighborhood, while Powell, the chairman of
    the volunteer summit, helped clean a lot littered with empty bottles of
    potent malt liquor, syringes and decayed furniture. 



    "If enough people get together and start doing things like this, I
    think it will help," neighborhood resident Granger Simmons, 13, said. 



    In an op-ed article in Sunday's Philadelphia Inquirer, Clinton said
    citizen service was a "critical way" to fulfill American ideals. 



    "Here in Philadelphia, we have the chance to reaffirm the basic bargain
    that has kept us strong since the framers' day: opportunity for all,
    responsibility for all and a united American community where everyone
    has a role to play," he said. 



    Critics of the volunteer summit said citizens were unlikely to have the
    know-how or persistence needed to address the root causes of urban
    decay and other social problems, and predicted the meeting here would
    ultimately be remembered as so much feel-good politics. 



    Philadelphia Mayor Ed Rendell, who strongly supports the summit but who
    has criticized federal welfare cuts, said the spotlight on volunteerism
    should not obscure a continued need for the government to address major
    social issues. 



    "Volunteerism is very helpful when it's designed for things like
    mentoring youth, safe places to play after school, but volunteerism
    can't solve everything," Rendell told reporters. "Government still has
    a significant role, if not the most significant role to play." 
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

    So now it is becoming a trend that paid government programs are
    considered volunteerism.
    
    Volunteerism always meant, to me, that a person donated their time,
    talent, money, etc to a project of their choice because they saw a need
    or had a significant interest in helping.
    
    Since the last four decades have seen an ever increasing role of
    government in providng these services no wonder people no longer see a
    need to provide their own efforts.
    

	I think stressing to get people to help is a wonderful thing. But I do
see your point quite clearly. 

    Yha! I can see us now driving into those high crime areas to help clean
    up the inner city... Right! Whats orange and sleeps six? DPW trucks!:)

Nuremberg on the Delaware
Clinton's Servitude at Independence Hall
by Richard E. Ralston

This month, the entire political establishment of both parties will
meet in Philadelphia for a summit promoting "the duty to serve others."

Some summit attendees will urge you to voluntarily renounce the pursuit
of your own happiness. The others will dispense with the veneer of
"volunteerism" in favor of the government drafting you and your
children into a gigantic army of social workers.
Many years ago, John F. Kennedy made an attempt to overturn
the American tradition of individual rights by offering this false
alternative: "Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you
can do for your country." Almost no one at the time pointed out that
another option was offered by the Founding Fathers, when they
established a Constitutional Republic based on inalienable rights:
free, autonomous individuals pursuing their own happiness and not
choosing between being parasites or sacrificial lambs. Every citizen,
they held, should be have the liberty to enjoy his own life, free of
government dictates.

More people should have spoken out against Kennedy. Because
they did not, the calls for sacrifice continue, with little opposition.
In his April 5 radio address to the nation, President Clinton
identified the goals of the "Presidents' Summit on Service":

        Citizen service is the main way we recognize that we are
        responsible for one another. It is the very American idea
        that we meet our challenges not through heavy-handed
        government or as isolated individuals, but as members of a
        true community, with all of us working together.

But what if all of us don't want to work together? What if
some of us think that such collectivism is a "Nazi idea," not a "very
American idea"? And, of course, the "heavy-handed government" that Clinton
claims to reject is ready to rear its head, as indeed it must, when
people believe that your life doesn't belong to you:

        I challenge schools and communities in every state
        to make service a part of the curriculum in high schools and
        even in middle schools. There are many creative ways to do
        this including giving students credit, making service part
        of the curriculum, putting service on a student's transcript
        or even requiring it, as Maryland does. Every young American
        should be taught the joy and the duty of serving, and should
        learn it at the moment when it will have the most enduring
        impact on the rest of their lives.

Denying students their high school diplomas is surely
"creative" volunteerism. Such coercion is at the heart of a plethora of
similar proposals from those of Ted Kennedy's to those of William F.
Buckley's.

Supporters of self-sacrifice always end up using government
to compel sacrifice; it is perfectly logical and proper if it is
accepted that individuals don't own their own lives. Of course, in
order to give, someone has to receive. Altruists never explain what all
of this receiving of other people's sacrifices does to the moral worth
of those on the receiving end. They just want sacrifice, with pressure
groups deciding who gets sacrificed to whom at any particular moment.

Can we maintain a society of creative, productive individuals
if feeding soup to drug addicts takes precedence over studying and
career preparation?

Can we expect people to take responsibility for their own
lives if they're told that everyone else has a "duty" to take care of
them?

Can we keep our rights as individuals if Mr. Clinton and his
colleagues mandate what our "joy and duty" should be? Some years ago
Lyndon Johnson forced hundreds of thousands of Americans into the "joy
and duty of service" in Vietnam, a joy which Mr. Clinton eschewed.

Can we have a free society if every young American accepts
the "joy and duty of serving" as the moral justification for his life?
Isn't this the "joy" that the Hitler Jugend were taught at Nuremberg?

We cannot maintain a free society if the "duty and service"
morality of Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia take over America. Unless we
tell Mr. Clinton, the former Presidents, and every politician we can
find: "Volunteer to do anything you want to do. Just don't volunteer me
or my children or tell me I'm immoral unless I agree. I have no duty to
sacrifice myself to anybody. My life belongs to me, not to you."

Mr. Ralston is Director of Development at the Ayn Rand Institute in
Marina del Rey, California. http://www.aynrand.org/no_servitude

For more information about ARI's Campaign against Servitude, write
Scott McConnell, ARI's Director of Communication ([email protected]).

    .37
    
    The entry pretty much sums up my feelings on the whole matter.  The
    only thing that bothers me more is that Clinton is trying to take
    credit for this and expanding beyond the original, positive intent of
    the seminar.
    
    It actually was an off-shoot of Bush's 1000 points of light that were
    roundly ridiculed by the Dems and liberals as well as Clinton.  Now
    when he thinks he can get his hands into more of Americans lives and
    pockets, he's all in favor of it.
    

 Man, they're laying it on thick, eh?  What a visionary Bill is..

Actually, it's just a transparent ploy to enable the administration to say, "See, it's *your* 
('you' being everyone but them) fault!" when anything does awry with society.

    
      all i wanna kno is whether richie ralston is related to tom
    
      bb

    >all i wanna kno is whether richie ralston is related to tom 
    
    And what possible difference could that make?

    
      I'm curious.  I see some resemblance in style, attitude, content.
    
      There are not very many people who think any harm whatever can
     come of asking people to do volunteer work.  Many people do such
     work, for one or another purpose they believe in.  I have, myself.
     Many times, there's no other way - what do you think, you can PAY
     Little League coaches ?  That there will ever be a Jim Percival
     dog rescue operation without a volunteer ?  This is fantasy.
    
      So, I have a hunch there's a relationship.  I know my family has
     a predeliction towards certain traits - if you met two or three
     Brauchers, you'd soon get the M.O.
    
      bb
      So I was wondering 

    >I'm curious.  I see some resemblance in style, attitude, content.
    
    Maybe we're actually the same person?!  ;)
     
    >There are not very many people who think any harm whatever can
    >come of asking people to do volunteer work.  Many people do such
    >work, for one or another purpose they believe in.  I have, myself.
    >Many times, there's no other way - what do you think, you can PAY
    >Little League coaches ?  That there will ever be a Jim Percival
    >dog rescue operation without a volunteer ?  This is fantasy.
    
    Building a strawman, my friend? Don't confuse volunteerism with
    government coercion and force, disguised as volunteerism. I volunteer
    much of my time. I do it for my own reasons. No one has the right to
    insist I volunteer. When the government decides that volunteerism is a
    prerequisite to graduation from high school, they have overstepped the
    boundries of individual rights and a free nation.
                                                     

    This is another example of symbolism over substance by this corrupt
    administration.
    
    When volunteerism was presented by George Bush and Newt Gingrich they
    were soundly ridiculed because they did not include it as a government
    program.  Now little Billy jumps on the band wagon with the inclusion
    of government funding and mandates and all of the little socialists and
    liberals think it's a great idea.
    
    Apparently volunteering isn't important to these people.  Forcing
    others to do what you want and the government controlling and funding
    it is what's more important.
    
    What a disgrace.
    

    >  So, I have a hunch there's a relationship.  I know my family has
    > a predeliction towards certain traits - if you met two or three
    > Brauchers, you'd soon get the M.O.
    
     Don't tell me. There's a lot of pissing and moaning about authority
    figures at the dinner table.

 I was channel surfing for a bit last night and it seemed everywhere I
 landed there was some talking head just beside themselves with how wonderful
 this program is..

 volunteerism: Good
 thousand points of light: bad

    
      tom : take a look at .37 again.  There's some pretty extreme
     talk there, it seems to me.
    
      Granted, "community service" is often a sentence in juvenile
     court.  So it hardly makes sense as a high school requirement.
     On the other hand, giving credit for service makes some sense.
     It's an oxymoron to order anybody to volunteer.
    
      But still, .37 looks like blather to me.  What is there here to
     get so worked up about ?  Clinton is a very bad president.  But
     a Nazi ?  That's preposterous.
    
      bb

    There is nothing wrong with voluntary charity. What is being protested is 
    the idea that voluntary charity is somehow virtuous or that a person who 
    does not volunteer is somehow morally corrupt. If you really think hard 
    and try to get to the primary motivation for charitable acts, it would 
    probably be that it makes one feel good. Actually, it helps them to be 
    perceived as good, but it does not necessarily make them good. If you're 
    going to help other people, do it because you care about them and because 
    you want to. Not because it is socially acceptable or because you can get 
    benefits from the federal government, such as tax deductions and not 
    having to pay off student loan interest, as proposed by Clinton. 

    
      Actually, I think this was one of Clinton's usual blow-away feelgood
     lines, like in the State of the Union when he urged every little
     johnny and suzy to go log into alt.sex.bestial.pedophiles...  But
     there will be no follow through, as usual.  The most ethical
     administration in history is doing a 4-year victory lap.  They're
     mailing it in now.
    
      The references in the bottom of .37 comparing Clinton's "challenge"
     with the political pleas of the Nazis is a bad piece of writing.
     When you bring in the Nazis, you lose half your audience, who
     decide you're too angry to deal with.
    
      bb

    >Clinton is a very bad president.
    
     Based on what metric? Personal character issues aside, would you
    prefer his immediate democratic predecessor? He's made a lot of
    mistakes, but he's also become quite adept at handling the power
    struggle and courting public opinion. And he hasn't wrecked the
    economy.

    .51
    
    Not having wrecked the economy is not much of an accomplishment.  I am
    sure I would not think of anyone as a good driver because they didn't
    total the car.  Also there are a lot of other factors for a decent
    economy than Clinton's leadership.  Just one of which is Greenspan.
    
    This is more feelgoodism with little substance but the potential to
    create a significant increase in government spending.
    

re: Not having wrecked the economy == Not having totaled the car

Poor, misleading comparison, which infact contradicts what it is supposed
to support.

There are say 10 million drivers in USA who can drive without getting into an
accident. But there are and can be, only a handful of people who have
the ability not to wreck the economy. 

>>    Not having wrecked the economy is not much of an accomplishment.

Having a skill-set which is in short supply is an accomplishment.
    

    .53
    
    OK. let me put it this way for you.  Clinton was stopped from
    implementing numerous programs that would have damaged the economy.  He
    was stopped by the Congress and the Federal Reserve.  Left to his own
    devices he would have created an economy that would be much worse than
    it presently is.
    
    The above having been said, I believe the car analogy is fairly
    accurate.  Not having damaged anything is not the same having done
    something good.
    

    >Left to his own devices he would have created an economy that would be 
    >much worse than it presently is.
    
    Not to mention our healthcare system.

    so Our healthcare system has been replaced by something even worse, or
    have you checked on what is happening with Military Retiree programs,
    dependent programs, and Medicare (and medicaid?)  The republican
    legislature has brought about exactly what they accused clinton of
    trying to do.  Tri-care (known as "try-to-get-care" by my relatives) is
    a nightmare.  It doesn't even pay as much as the cheapest of the HMO's
    and many civilian Dr's will not take it.  The Military Dr's in this
    part of the country no longer see dependents and retirees, except on an
    emergency basis.  My understanding is that they will be trying this
    with other Sr's and poor children next.  How nice.
    
    thanks for giving us everything we were afraid of with Clintoncare.  It
    is already 1/2 way there.  The number of uninsured workers has also
    gone up.

 Hmm...man I met on the train a couple weeks ago (73 years old retired Army)
 had nothing but good things to say about the care he received from the VA,
 and he had just recently had a triple bypass.



 Jim

    >Not having wrecked the economy is not much of an accomplishment.  
    
     I didn't say it was. But it tends not to support the contention that
    he is a "very bad" president.

    
      ok, doc, you convinced me
    
      i'll vote fer slick from now on
    
      bb

    >The republican
    >legislature has brought about exactly what they accused clinton of
    >trying to do.  Tri-care (known as "try-to-get-care" by my relatives) is
    >a nightmare.

     And the changes are?

    Well, they've ruined everything! Isn't it obvious?

    Jim,
    
    VA hospitals are quite different from what is happening in Colorado and
    other places.
    
    1.  the VA hospital in Denver has lost Fitzsimmons, where they used to
    sent the really difficult cases and the heart bypass cases.  It was a
    regional hospital for active military, retirees, some vets, and active
    and retired Mil dependants.  VA hospitals also do not serve dependants
    or retiresees.  They are primarily for service connected health
    problems.  
    
    2.  Evans, Academy and the other smaller military hospitals in CO can
    no longer meet the case load for active military.  Retirees, and all
    dependants are on tri-care or medicare if they are over 55.  This is
    not what was promised to WWII vets who stayed on afterwards. they were
    promised care for life for themselves and their dependants (wives or
    husbands)  
    
    meg

    I wonder if in-volenteer-ing your tax dollars counts?

    .62
    
    Could you please idenify the changes that the Republicans made that
    changed the medical coverage for military retirees?  I have not seen
    anything in any of the news medias that would support your contention.
    
    There may have been changes made, but I wonder when and who was
    responsible for them.  I wonder if these changes were part of the Dems
    and libeerals attack on military spending and was enacted back several
    years ago and you are just now seeing the effects of a reduced military
    budget.
    
    There are a lot of different reasons why this might have taken place,
    but it is much easier just to blame the Republicans.  It requires so
    much less thought.
    
    OBTW, I'm not so sure that it is rational to have a policy that tells
    some guy who spends 2,3, or 4 years in the military for evermore he and
    his family will receive free medical care.  Just doen't seem that such
    a program is reasonable.
    

    rocush,.
    
    the care promised during WWII was for retirees and their dependants. 
    these were not people who were in for only 4 years.  They were in for
    20 and more.  they also did not pay into medicare during that time, so
    now those of us who have been paying in are also paying extra for
    people who didn't.  this is a fairly sizeable population. 
    
    The Stuff here is from the Repub's,  one reason I was not surprised that
    a dem actually had votes against the local "illustrious" congress
    critter.  He had not only voted to close Fitzsimmons, but also is a big
    booster of tri-care.  Check versions of the Gazzette telegraph for more
    details.  I find it obscene that the congress critters and executive
    branch people can get care for themselves, their wives and minor
    children and Bethesda Naval and Walter Reed, when active duty people
    stationed in the greater DC area can no longer  get that same level of
    care now.  
    
    For those who are recieving care after having spent only 4-5 years or
    less in the service, these are people who became ill or were injured
    while on active duty.  That is what the VA hospital system is for. 
    Consider it kind of workman's comp insurance for combatants.
    
    meg
    
    

    .65
    
    And exactly why is the funding level lower?  Is this part of the
    military budget that you and so many others are so quick to want to see
    cut?  If it is, then you are now seeing your wishes come through.  YOu
    want to see cuts, well you've got 'em.
    
    Or would you rather see young men sent into battle unprepared with less
    than the best equipment so they can be killed as opposed to just
    wounded?
    
    Maybe you should be looking at other palces to cut spending than the
    liberals favorite whipping boy.
    

    Rocush,
    
    As long as we are spending money on Billion + dollar bombers while not
    giving the ground support troops obvious necessaries, don't talk to me
    about what can and can't be cut.  
    
    Otherwise what you are saying is that republicans will provide
    substandard to nonexistant medical care to the military to prove a
    point?  and I thought theDems were the ones with the ties to organized
    crime.  This sort of extortion is beyond the pale.
    
    meg

    .67
    
    Still missing the point I see.  Let's see, I get a bomber in the air
    that can bring the enemy to its knees or atleast do one hell of a lot
    of damage begfore I send the ground troops in.  Now that plane cost a
    big chunk of change, but it keeps 100s of boys from getting killed or
    wounded.  to me that's a really good trade off.
    
    Also, under no circumstances do I think the ground troops should not
    have the best equipment, nor do I think medical care should not be
    provided.
    
    The fact of the matter is that you and many others just want the budget
    cut.  so would you prefer to see the bomber not there and just send the
    boys in to get shot at?  Or let's fund the medical care and keep the
    plane and the ground troops at a level unable to do the job.
    
    It is you and those who htink like you that cut the funding.  If I have
    to chose between getting the best bombers in the air to save ground
    troops, and I have to pay to keep the ground troops prepared and safe
    and look to other expense items to save the money you demand be cut,
    well you wanted the cut.
    
    Just how many lives can be lost in order to meet your cuts, as long as
    the medical costs aren't cut?
    
    You're absolutely clueless.
    

    Clueless I am not, however, I believe you need to buy a vowel.  
    
    There are far cheaper and superior air weapons than the billion dollar
    bomber whose own navigation systems can't differentiate between a
    mountain range and a squall line.  The radar "proofing" was already
    obsolete and useless before the first plane came down the line, and you
    think this is a good plane and worth that sort of money?  
    
    
    
    
    
    

i'm gonna hafta go back and read what's been said 'bout volunteering and medical
costs for retirees, etc 'cause i got lost in here somewhere.

back to _mandatory_ volunteering: who the 'ell does he think he is?  someone 
else stated the good of volunteering and i agree as do all other people i've 
spoken with: volunteer from the heart to support a cause you believe in.

however, all those low life lazy scum bags stealing my money? yeah, i [and a lot
of us] feel that they should be made to volunteer their time towards the 
community they live in: the free ride is over folks.

making school kids volunteer to graduate?!?!?!? gmafb! but how many wanted GOALS
2000? give the feds an inch, they'll take a mile.

ogre.

    Here in NH, we are getting constant orders from the VA for computer
    systems. We have 2 people working almost full time on configs. My
    sister and next door neighbor both work for the VA and have told me
    about the extensive programs to upgrade service. WW2 vets have Cancer
    and Prostate peoblems, Vietnam vets have extensive cancer and
    emmotional problems.
    
    I think Meg has been shown to be quite the military expert 8-) not!
    
    Her tin cup approach to the military promoted by many liberals
    has killed many soldiers. I have shown in previous notes answering her
    'tin cup' approach how it cost us dearly in the early days of WW2.
    Notice how she challenged my facts. History is on my side. I read a
    lot of it and understand how wars are fought, won, lost and started. 
    
    At the end of WW2 we sent investigators to Japan to try and understand
    why they attacked us. We were so much more capable (eventually) of
    fighting a war then they were. Their leaders stated that they saw us as
    weak. They thought we wouldn't fight. The bill to start the draft
    passed by one vote in the House. The congress rejected spending money
    to upgrade the military and to spend a piddily amount to fortify Guam.
    Many men died to taking  Guam back...
    
    Stick to something you may know something about.
    

<--.71 Dr. Deuce

    Dear Dr. Deuce,
      Is the number 2 implied by your personal name your IQ?  
    
>    Stick to something you may know something about.
    
hth,
kb

    RE .72
    
    Dear kb:
    
    If you knew something about the military, my personal name would be
    clear...
    
    

    >Dear Dr. Deuce,
    >  Is the number 2 implied by your personal name your IQ?  
    
     Now THAT added a lot. I guess if you lack the ability to challenge
    someone's presentation of facts or opinions, you're pretty much left
    with personal attacks. Of course, when one never enters facts or
    opinions of their own, preferring instead to jump out and throw rocks
    at others we know what kind of person we are dealing with.

  What a clever rascal you are Doc.  I hope your spleen is sufficiently vented.

re:.71
  My attempt at sarcasm may have been misguided.  Meg referred to vets who
  were not getting the care they were promised.  From the first paragraph, it
  seemed to me that two people working on configs, and promises of 
  upgraded service meant Meg did not now what she was talking about. 
  I am close to people who deal with the VA on a regular basis and from
  what I have heard and seen, veterans are not getting what they were
  promised.  To brush this off with a comment such as 
  
�    Stick to something you may know something about.

  would have to come from someone with a subpar intelligence. If the intent 
  of the reply was not to suggest the veterans are getting everything they
  were promised, I retract my (less than civil) remark.

rgrds,
kb  


re: .74   gee Doc your wittiness just gives me goosebumps.  

    >I hope your spleen is sufficiently vented.
    
     Topic 35 material. But it's pretty easy to see your faults in others,
    isn't it?
    
    >re: .74   gee Doc your wittiness just gives me goosebumps.  
    
     I can't tell you how focused I am on obtaining your approval.
    

    RE .75
    
    I suggest that you re-read .71
    
    No where did I state that the service that the vets got was adequate. I
    stated that from my DEC experience and that of my sister and neighbor
    (different VA hospitals) and an uncle by the way that things were
    getting better. Not perfect.
    
    I suggested that her 'tin cup' approach was dead wrong, especially for
    vets as far as defense and wars go (you know the people that have to 
    suffer and die for such foolishness) as proven by numerous examples
    (facts) presented by me, as opposed to her General relative, other 
    anecdotal (sp) tidbits and other liberal anti-DOD mantras.
    
    Hope this helps 8-)
    Steve

    
>    Hope this helps 8-)
   tnx  Steve,  it does.  I skipped a beat between reading what you wrote
   and letting it sink in.  Wish I could blame it on lack of caffeine:-)
kb

    Things may be getting better in your neck of the woods, come out to CO
    with the expectations of any care if you are a retiree.  Yes I am
    painfully familiar with this.  My Grandfather, father, brother, and
    three cousins are currently in or are retired from the military.  I
    also know that spending money on wizzbangs which are useless and
    obsolete, while depriving people of the basic care they were promised
    and saying it is all the liberal's fault is disingenious.  
    
    meg

    The VA is the worst health care system in the free world. Most doctors
    are residents just passing through with a desire to experiment. The
    nurses are underpaid and frustrated. The rest of the help are
    incompetents and treat patients like crap. If you call on the phone,
    they snap at you and act as though they are doing you a favor. Other
    times they are plain rude and will not give you the time of day. Going
    to a VA hospital is the last resort if you have other alternatives. All
    is not bad BUT you have to look hard. Like all other government health
    care situations, the system is broke. You might see some changes but
    the ball is large and rolling fast and it is very hard to change
    directions. It is like a company were everybody is a VP and there are
    no workers.

    .79
    
    Just who has demanded that the defense budget and military spending be
    gutted?  There may be some impact on the medical care, but there is
    also a huge impact on the rest of the military as well.
    
    So many people, for so long have demanded reductions without any regard
    for the impact, that now when a result of that reduction shows up, you
    complain.
    

    One problem with the 'tin-cup' approach to DOD spending is that when
    you need to fight or protect your interest (spell Bosnia) you have to
    fight with what you have available both in manpower and equipment. This
    is just common sense. If you have inferior equipment, training, or
    manpower, you will (actually the soldiers will) pay for it. So as I see
    it, many of those wounded and dismembered military people in the VA
    system who were in the early days of WW2, and Korea paid for this lack
    of knowledge and stupidity as to military spending and preparedness. To
    me these people are much more of a concern than someone who when thru
    the service unscathed. They paid a very dear price and no one here
    would trade with them. 
    
    Some DOD spending is plain stupid today: the B2 is probably the
    biggest.
    
    And yes, my syster has told me untold horror stories about the
    healthcare at VA hospitals...
    
    Steve

    
    851.82
    
    Comparing numbers of soldiers involved in recent actions, with
    actions prior to VietNam, the US lost a miniscule number of soldiers
    killed and wounded.  Accidents and friendly fire often outweigh battle
    casualties.
    
    If you can fight a full scale battle involving hundreds of thousands of
    men and women and return casualties in the low hundreds, you have a
    very hard time convincing people that your troops are ill prepared
    and the DoD has been underfunded recently.
    
    For example: The US air forces in the Gulf took smaller
    losses than the European air forces even though they flew a far higher
    number of missions.   On the ground, soviet made tanks were completely
    outgunned by US tanks even in the hands of the elite Iraqi units.
    
    Since the end of the cold war, it has become increasingly apparent that
    the technological leads of the East were always far inferior to that of
    the US.  Given the current shape of the world, any additional
    expenditure could not possibly improve casualty figures.  Had it been
    the sole goal, we could have ensured a zero casualty victory in the gulf
    by bombing - a technology that has been available for decades.
    
    Even in Bosnia, Somalia, Panama, and Haiti the number of casualties
    has been vanishingly small.  However, in Vietnam, the US forces were
    technologically superior (vastly), military spending was at an all
    time high and casualties were apalling.
    
    
    

    RE .83
    
    I don't disagree with your assessment RE Gulf war. Actually it proves
    my point. We were much better prepared in training, equipment etc than
    WW2 or Korea. Vietnam is a mixed story. We were relatively well
    prepared but the application of force and the restrictions placed upon
    them negated everything.
    
    The losses at the beginning of WW2 and Korea and the equipment and
    conditions were in most cases appauling.
    
    Steve

    RE. 83
    
        We are not as prepared as we were in 1992. We have reduced
    spending, cut the size of the force and are not investing in new
    weapons like we should. 
    
        Peace through strength.
    
                                 Steve J.

    
      Oh, I dunno.  We've been buying some neat widgets lately.
    
      Bombers, subs.  Investing in Star Wars.  I don't think we're
     in any immediate military danger.
    
      Nor does it look like either the Congress or the Administration
     is likely to go for any further large reductions.
    
      bb

    But you need to buy the 'right stuff'
    
    As an example: During the late 40's & 50's our leaders mil and civy
    thought that there would be no wars other  than nukes; WRONG-O  We
    neglected our conventional forces/weapons etc for hundreds of nuke
    delivery systems.
    
    You have to be preopared to fight any kind of war. Your enemy will not
    necessarily accomodate you by fighting by your rules. The British
    learned that at Concord.

    
    i prefer cold wars.
    

    I prefer cold beers.

    cold cuts and cold beers! :)
    

    
    cold slaw