And to be fair, temporary nationalization of certain things during a a major crisis like a world war (properly and formally declared by Congress, of course) is probably acceptable so long as things get de-nationalized once the crisis is over.
The point of the USPS is not to run as a profitable business.
You are technically correct. The USPS is a semi-independent federal agency given the authority to provide countrywide mail delivery. But they are mandated to be income neutral (neither a profit or a loss) (title 39 USC section 101 paragraph d). The only money the get from actual taxpayers is for services they provide for free like mail for the blind. They however do get to run themselves like a business (title 39 USC section 401). And in my opinion a businesses duty is to adept to a changing market. I don't think the USPS did that, and now they are having issues as any business would. I wholeheartedly encourage them to end Saturday delivery, change rates, and expand their business model to maintain their ability to keep a budget neutral status. Admittedly that may require some changes to section 401 depending on what they come up with. Though as long as those changes are reasonable I do not see any political opposition to doing so.
The republican party does have political opposition to doing so for inherent reasons (less government), political reasons (unions), and extrinsic reasons (privatize things). They want to "set us up the bomb" where us is the postal service.
Of course, any GOP who claims to be a Constitutionalist and who also wants to abolish the postal service is an idiot who doesn't read the Constitution, given how one of Congress's jobs in the Constitution is to set up a postal service.
Ah, please allow me to amend my statement to: I don't see any reasonable opposition to allowing the USPS to update section 401 allowing for advancements in the postal market. I sometimes forget to allow for stubborn politicians.
This Dorner manhunt can't help but sound like the plot of an 80's action film is running in the background. If the army/national guard/fbi/cia get called in and "his old army buddies" are brought back into service to hunt him down, I'll know I only exist as a character in a fictional setting.
Those other sets of cops shooting at obviously innocent unrelated people is troubling. I put long, but not impossible, odds on something a little crazy:
1. The dude is, in fact, a nutjob with obvious issues 2. The dude was, in fact, actually exposing deep corruption. 3. The dude was fired for a combination of both of the above. 4. Dude flipped out and went on a murder rampage. 5. Corrupt cops want him to be dead rather than arrested, in case his testimony brings out their corruption.
Now, if this were a movie, he was framed to keep him from exposing deep corruption, and is now on the run waging a war against the evil cops at the top, trying not to run afoul of the good beat cops just following orders, and on the run from what is effectively a police hit squad.
The dude is actually Bruce Willis, and Sean Connery (the man who trained him to kill) has to round up the old gang of badasses and hunt him down. Queue San Francisco car chases, hidden chemical weapons on Alcatraz Island, and some kind of run-in with an Apache helicopter.
Since the Pentagon has opened up combat jobs to women does this mean women will be signing up for selective service?
I doubt it. I believe Selective Service would only be used for a draft. Considering we rely on a voluntary military now, I think they just keep it running just in case Will Smith can't stop the next alien invasion.
The weird thing is that many women I know either don't know that selective service exists or don't understand how it's sexist so they don't understand why it should be done away with.
I don't see how impressment fits with democratic ideals.
There is a line of thought which considers standing professional armies to be detrimental to democratic ideals. For example:
In time of actual war, great discretionary powers are constantly given to the Executive Magistrate. Constant apprehension of War, has the same tendency to render the head too large for the body. A standing military force, with an overgrown Executive will not long be safe companions to liberty. The means of defence against foreign danger, have been always the instruments of tyranny at home. Among the Romans it was a standing maxim to excite a war, whenever a revolt was apprehended. Throughout all Europe, the armies kept up under the pretext of defending, have enslaved the people.
This Dorner Manhunt deal continues to be one of the few big media stories I've actually paid any attention to. I think Rym's description of the possibilities could be quite reasonable. Not enough data! I actually want all the data!
Comments
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Gauntlet_(film)
1. The dude is, in fact, a nutjob with obvious issues
2. The dude was, in fact, actually exposing deep corruption.
3. The dude was fired for a combination of both of the above.
4. Dude flipped out and went on a murder rampage.
5. Corrupt cops want him to be dead rather than arrested, in case his testimony brings out their corruption.
Now, if this were a movie, he was framed to keep him from exposing deep corruption, and is now on the run waging a war against the evil cops at the top, trying not to run afoul of the good beat cops just following orders, and on the run from what is effectively a police hit squad.
http://bigstory.ap.org/article/tv-station-hacker-warns-zombies-montana
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_JESSE_JACKSON_JR?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2013-02-15-16-20-16
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/chi-jackson-charges-20130215,0,319725.story
http://abcnews.go.com/International/hugo-chavez-dead-president-venezuela-58-died-cancer/story?id=16198379
And am I the only one who finds it really satisfying to say the name "Chavez"?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/06/aclu-police-militarization-swat_n_2813334.html?utm_hp_ref=mostpopular