Author: Crystal Fontaine

What would you do the government suddenly demanded you to leave your family and friends to join the US military? What would you do if, no matter your best efforts, you were forced to serve? The idea of a military draft is not a new concept. In 1940, President Franklin Roosevelt signed the Selective Training and Service Act, which created the nation’s first peacetime draft. Men were drafted to fill vacancies that were no longer being filled by volunteers.

The draft, or conscription, is not without controversy. During the ever unpopular Vietnam War, it became a central issue for the American public. In order to avoid the draft, many men fled the country and protests weren’t uncommon. When the government ended the draft, an all-volunteer military was established. Since then, young men from the ages of 18 to 26 have been required by law to register with the Selective Service so that during an emergency the government would have a number of men to call upon. As the nation is currently fighting two wars, the United States has stretched its military sources thin without the use of a draft. Some might say that now is the time to once again instill the military draft.

One of the major proponents for the draft is the Excelsior State’s Representative Charles Rangel (D-NY). Rumors (and precedence) have it that this year Rangel would like to reintroduce legislation to re-establish the universal military draft. Rangel has introduced similar bills in the past, declaring that everyone in America should be forced by law to work for the government for a minimum of two years for little-to-no- pay. According to the New York Representative, the draft would strengthen U.S troop levels that are inadequate now to cover possible future action in places such as North Korea, Iraq, Iran and Afghanistan. Rangel has tried to introduce similar legislation in the year 2003 and again in the year 2007, but each time he has failed.

Rangel believes that a draft is the best thing for the nation due to citizens contributing to a shared sacrifice, giving the public a better understanding of military service. Former President Reagan once said, “Conscription rests on the assumption that your kids belong to the state. If we buy that assumption then it is for the state—not for parents, the community, the religious institutions or teachers—to decide who shall have what values and who shall do what work, when, where and how in our society. That assumption isn’t a new one. The Nazis thought it was a great idea”. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has said in the past that Rangel’s proposition for the draft was more about creating a point on social disparity. Many others have noted that the re-introduction would not get much attention from the public as the issue of the military strain in Iraq has been pushed to the side due to the economic crisis.

Author: Jared Fallon

At a time when many parents are concerned about the widespread and increasing amount of video game use, a major state-sponsored video game initiative is about to take place. Beginning in 2010, the US Army plans to pour $50 million dollars into developing battlefield simulation videogames in order to help prepare troops for combat. The idea behind such a program is certainly nothing new, but when considering the sheer amount of investment the Army is going to make, it is certain that many companies within the industry are doing back flips with the increased potential for private contracts for merely making shooting your cyber enemies as life-like as possible.

Currently, there is a lot of support in the House to conduct research initiatives into the health affects video games have on children. Such video game legislation is largely viewed as polar opposites to military policies like these. Such bills include Joe Baca’s H.R.2958, a bill that has support from many legislators who feel there is far too heavy an imbalance favoring first-person shooter and violence-based games. Furthermore, many parents advocate groups are pushing bills to tighten industry standards for video game ratings and their lure to teens – most notably including games that often are criticized for encouraging violence as a solution for domestic issues. For advocates in this realm, the $50 million dollar initiative is seen as an extreme set-back for these efforts, only strengthening the mind frame of American children to incorporate such violent games into their everyday lives.