Another slander against Heinlein
Bill Dennis
too:
An article on a Web site based in "occupied Iraq" hauls out the <a
href="http://www.uruknet.info/?p=m20711&l=i&size=1&hd=0">tired old
argument</a> that Robert Heinlein was a fascist.
**************************
How long has it been since you watched Starship Troopers? Perhaps you
should again. I caught some of it last week on television, and I was
surprised at how reality has outpaced it. I don't mean the space travel
and the giant bugs; I mean the abandonment of democracy and dutiful
dissent and the remodeling of America into a martial society. The bugs,
of course, were never bugs anyway. They're the eternal, dehumanized
other that needs only extermination. (The original title of 2002's
giant spider movie Eight Legged Freaks was "Arac Attack.")
Paul Verhoeven's film is smart enough to satirize Robert Heinlein's
rather straight-ahead authoritarianism (for instance, citizenship is a
privilege of those who sign up for "federal service"), though satire
seems a hard thing to grok for those who were disgusted by the story of
"Hitler Youth in love."
Besides expounding principles of governance which could arguably be
described as fascist, Heinlein was also - again, arguably - a student
of the occult, and a familiar of the principals of the Babalon Working:
Jack Parsons, L Ron Hubbard and "the Scarlet Woman," Marjorie Cameron.
*************
How typical of the left to equate anything military with fascism.
In an example of guilt by association, the writer goes on to link
Heinlein to the writer of the white supremacist manifesto "The Turner
Diaries."
I'll do the guy a favor: Next time you want to leap to conclusions, you
might want to mention Heinlein's short story "Free Men," which is about
a bunch of red-neck gun nut survivalists who attempt to overthrow the
legitimate government of the United States.
![harryfmudd [AT] comcast [DOT] net's profile photo](https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/a/default-user=s40-c)
harryfmudd [AT] comcast [DOT] net
> I posted this on my blog, but I thought I'd give a.f.h. a crack at this
> too:
>
> An article on a Web site based in "occupied Iraq" hauls out the <a
> href="http://www.uruknet.info/?p=m20711&l=i&size=1&hd=0">tired old
> argument</a> that Robert Heinlein was a fascist.
>
> **************************
> How long has it been since you watched Starship Troopers? Perhaps you
> should again. I caught some of it last week on television, and I was
> surprised at how reality has outpaced it. I don't mean the space travel
> and the giant bugs; I mean the abandonment of democracy and dutiful
> dissent and the remodeling of America into a martial society. The bugs,
> of course, were never bugs anyway. They're the eternal, dehumanized
> other that needs only extermination. (The original title of 2002's
> giant spider movie Eight Legged Freaks was "Arac Attack.")
>
> Paul Verhoeven's film is smart enough to satirize Robert Heinlein's
> rather straight-ahead authoritarianism (for instance, citizenship is a
> privilege of those who sign up for "federal service"), though satire
> seems a hard thing to grok for those who were disgusted by the story of
> "Hitler Youth in love."
Abandonment of "Dutiful dissent", huh? The more I think about it the
more this is a telling phrase. So _who_ has abandoned dutiful dissent,
and what have they abandoned it in favor of? Hmmm?
I too was disgusted by the movie. But the disgust was at its distortion
of Heinlein's novel into "90210 meets Them". But you can't _validly_
criticize Heinlein for that, because Heinlein didn't do it. Heinlein
_does_ assume in "Starship Troopers" that citizenship is not automatic,
but it is available to all. The writer says this is "arguably
authoritarian" but gives no argument.
I get the impression from other sources that Starship Troopers is
"fascist" because it puts the government in the hands of the "military."
But anyone who has read the novel with a reasonably open mind, knows
that the novel does _not_ put the government in the hands of the
military - people don't get the franchise until they become civilians
again. It seems to me this is "military government" only to people who
set out to demonize the military, and, presumably, "fascist" because
that's a favorite abusive term of the people doing the demonizing.
>
> Besides expounding principles of governance which could arguably be
> described as fascist, Heinlein was also - again, arguably - a student
> of the occult, and a familiar of the principals of the Babalon Working:
> Jack Parsons, L Ron Hubbard and "the Scarlet Woman," Marjorie Cameron.
> *************
Again "arguably". But if he made the argument, I missed it in the rest
of his Rhodamontade.
"A student of the occult?" Well, yes, "occult" as studied and taught (at
the time Heinlein wrote the stuff referred to) by that far-out,
sinister, and secretive institution, Duke University. A lot of Sci-Fi
writers in the 50's and 60's assumed "psi", and Heinlein was one. After
the guy (at Duke, if memory serves) got caught fudging data, they
stopped. So did Heinlein. It's called learning.
And can _anyone_ think of a favorable mention of L. Ron Hubbard in
Heinlein's corpus? The "elronners" (Heinlein's word, if I remember
correctly) are thugs in Friday, and mentioned disparagingly in The
Number of the Beast. The "argument" made here is eminently worthy of Joe
McCarthy.
>
> How typical of the left to equate anything military with fascism.
You know, I'm almost to the point of abandoning the traditional "right"
and "left" as having outlived their usefulness. Both sides seem to be
statists to me. Hitler was bad, but was it really that much better under
Stalin, who was nominally the other end of the political spectrum, and
typically gets a free pass from the left? Hitler had his death camps,
but Stalin had the Gulag -- _and_ the Ukrane.
Tom Wyant
William Hughes
[DOT] net" <"harryfmudd [AT] comcast [DOT] net"> wrote:
> Abandonment of "Dutiful dissent", huh? The more I think about it the
> more this is a telling phrase. So _who_ has abandoned dutiful dissent,
> and what have they abandoned it in favor of? Hmmm?
Anyone who thinks dissent has been abandoned hasn't been reading Daily Kos, or
the so-called mainstream media.
> I too was disgusted by the movie. But the disgust was at its distortion
> of Heinlein's novel into "90210 meets Them". But you can't _validly_
> criticize Heinlein for that, because Heinlein didn't do it. Heinlein
> _does_ assume in "Starship Troopers" that citizenship is not automatic,
> but it is available to all. The writer says this is "arguably
> authoritarian" but gives no argument.
And one of Heinlein's own characters mentions that the system is not necessarily
better than any other, but it works.
> You know, I'm almost to the point of abandoning the traditional "right"
> and "left" as having outlived their usefulness. Both sides seem to be
> statists to me. Hitler was bad, but was it really that much better under
> Stalin, who was nominally the other end of the political spectrum, and
> typically gets a free pass from the left? Hitler had his death camps,
> but Stalin had the Gulag -- _and_ the Ukrane.
I've long maintained that the only difference between Left and Right in this
country is which group of self-appointed elitists winds up in charge. Aside from
that, there ain't no difference - both stand for total government control of
everything.
RB
Note change of address; email address now cvproj *at* grandecom.net
bajasteve
required in Troopers was not necessarily military service. Most
detractors of the book conveniently forget this little tidbit, because
it doesn't blend well with their diatribes and rantings.
Steve
Bill Dennis
the book where that is stated to be the case.
David Dyer-Bennet
And also because the boook very explicitly, and over and over again, shows
that it isn't true.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, <mailto:dd...@dd-b.net>, <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/>
RKBA: <http://noguns-nomoney.com/> <http://www.dd-b.net/carry/>
Pics: <http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/> <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/>
Dragaera/Steven Brust: <http://dragaera.info/>
As...@tds.net
wrote:
>Steve: Wasn't that refuted, though? I'm trying to recall any passage in
>the book where that is stated to be the case.
When Juan is joining up, he states that he only listed military
preferences, since if he did not get military then he really did not
care what he did get (testing survival equipment on Titan and a labor
company terranizing Venus were mentioned as possibilities.)
The recruiter tells them that only a small number of enlistees have
what the military needs, but that they have to find jobs for all
volunteers who are capable of understanding the enlistment oath.
In OCS, it is stated that all volunteers have to be subjected to being
harried, overworked and endangered, whether or not they have what the
military needs.
*** Free account sponsored by SecureIX.com ***
*** Encrypt your Internet usage with a free VPN account from http://www.SecureIX.com ***
bajasteve
Date: Fri, Feb 17 2006 11:24 am
Email: "Bill Dennis" <peoriapun...@gmail.com>
Groups: alt.fan.heinlein
Steve: Wasn't that refuted, though? I'm trying to recall any passage in
the book where that is stated to be the case
That's my point after all, innit?
Steve
Bill Dennis
topic and there was some controversy over whether or the ACTUAL BOOK
said there were forms of qualifying service that did not include
military service.
I haven't read the SST in several years.
PS: Still trying to pick fights, eh, Steve?
;-)
As...@tds.net
wrote:
>I'm just saying that I recall some discussion in A.F.H. about this
>topic and there was some controversy over whether or the ACTUAL BOOK
>said there were forms of qualifying service that did not include
>military service.
There is no controversy whatsoever. It says so multiple times, quite
clearly.
>
>I haven't read the SST in several years.
Then you might want to reread it.
Denny Wheeler
wrote:
>How typical of the left to equate anything military with fascism.
How typical of the right to automatically bring out the BIG BROOM and
immediately characterize the sort of idiocy shown by the source you
mention as being 'the left'.
Good effort at dialogue there, isn't it, Bill?
<mild rant over>
I've seen just as much idiocy and slander about Heinlein coming from
those whose politics are conservative as from those whose politics are
liberal.
I agree fully that the linked article is a good illo of sloppy
thinking, gross misunderstanding, and--very likely--total ignorance of
Heinlein's writing.
And--the film named "Starship Troopers" a satire? Yeah, right. And
Valentine Michael Smith was really Adolf Eichmann.
-denny-
--
"...our dignity, our free institutions and the peace and
welfare of this and coming generations of Americans will be
secure only as we cling to the watchword of true patriotism:
'Our country--when right to be kept right; when wrong to be put
right.'" - Carl Schurz, in 1899
Fred J. McCall
:I'm just saying that I recall some discussion in A.F.H. about this
:topic and there was some controversy over whether or the ACTUAL BOOK
:said there were forms of qualifying service that did not include
:military service.
The term used is "Federal service"; obviously non-military service
counts and is explicitly mentioned in several places.
--
"We sleep safe in our beds because rough men stand ready in the night
to visit violence on those who would do us harm.
-- George Orwell
TreetopAngel
Aspie writes:
> In OCS, it is stated that all volunteers have to be subjected to being
> harried, overworked and endangered, whether or not they have what the
> military needs.
Sounds like a nurse work...
E!
Joseph T Major
>I posted this on my blog, but I thought I'd give a.f.h. a crack at this
>too:
>
>An article on a Web site based in "occupied Iraq" hauls out the <a
>href="http://www.uruknet.info/?p=m20711&l=i&size=1&hd=0">tired old
>argument</a> that Robert Heinlein was a fascist.
>
>
Allow me to quote myself:
? Nevertheless, authoritian regimes don't try to instill habits of deep
philosophical analysis in
their governing cadres. Think of Commodore Arkwright's rationale for the
"Doubt" class in the
Patrol Academy of Space Cadet. Here it goes further in philosophizing,
if less far in instilling
opposition. Johnnie observes that "History and Moral Philosophy works
like a delayed-action bomb.
You wake up in the middle of the night and think: Now what did he mean
by that?" [p. 140]
From _Heinlein's Children_, now available from Advent.
Joseph T Major
willre...@yahoo.com
David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
> "bajasteve" <steven...@sbcglobal.net> writes:
>
> > And I think we really need to keep in mind that the "federal service"
> > required in Troopers was not necessarily military service. Most
> > detractors of the book conveniently forget this little tidbit, because
> > it doesn't blend well with their diatribes and rantings.
>
> And also because the boook very explicitly, and over and over again, shows
What the book shows is that you can't *choose* non-military service.
However, you can wind up with non-military service if you fail to
qualify for anything military. This would make the franchise
unobtainable for a pacifist because he, she or it would have to risk
being accepted for the infantry rather than get that cushy civilian job
in the Terraforming of Hell or whatever. Whether the non-military slots
were under military-style discipline is not discussed.
Will in New Haven
--
"Win the easy hands. Loud, noisy confrontations are for d-gs."
_Poker for Cats_ by Feather
djinn
willre...@yahoo.com wrote:
> David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
> > "bajasteve" <steven...@sbcglobal.net> writes:
> >
> > > And I think we really need to keep in mind that the "federal service"
> > > required in Troopers was not necessarily military service. Most
> > > detractors of the book conveniently forget this little tidbit, because
> > > it doesn't blend well with their diatribes and rantings.
> >
> > And also because the boook very explicitly, and over and over again, shows
> > that it isn't true.+
>
> What the book shows is that you can't *choose* non-military service.
> However, you can wind up with non-military service if you fail to
> qualify for anything military. This would make the franchise
> unobtainable for a pacifist because he, she or it would have to risk
> being accepted for the infantry rather than get that cushy civilian job
> in the Terraforming of Hell or whatever. Whether the non-military slots
> were under military-style discipline is not discussed.
>
> Will in New Haven
>
stuck in a non-combat type job. There would have been a way to
accomodate Quakers or other committed pacifists.
Rico requested military type jobs, he could have asked for terraforming
or whatever first. He might have got it. Then we'd have had Starship
Ditchdiggers. Not as catchy a title.
Bill Dennis
Just because this particular post didn't explicitly complain about "the
right," that doesn't mean I don't have any complaints about
conservatives. This post was about an attack on Heinlein by someone who
difinately fits a "left" sterotype.So if was the left's turn on the
meat grinder. That's all.
Bill Dennis
traditional "right"
and "left" as having outlived their usefulness. Both sides seem to be
statists to me. Hitler was bad, but was it really that much better
under
Stalin, who was nominally the other end of the political spectrum, and
typically gets a free pass from the left? Hitler had his death camps,
but Stalin had the Gulag -- _and_ the Ukrane. "
Not a bad philosophy to have. Since the writer was such a
sterotypicalleftist, I felt comfortable goign with the description,
Bill Dennis
Actually, it's probably a good idea, since I read it that long ago.
;-)
Bill Dennis
working yet.
Chris Zakes
"willre...@yahoo.com" <willre...@yahoo.com> to write:
>
>David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
>> "bajasteve" <steven...@sbcglobal.net> writes:
>>
>> > And I think we really need to keep in mind that the "federal service"
>> > required in Troopers was not necessarily military service. Most
>> > detractors of the book conveniently forget this little tidbit, because
>> > it doesn't blend well with their diatribes and rantings.
>>
>> And also because the boook very explicitly, and over and over again, shows
>> that it isn't true.+
>
>What the book shows is that you can't *choose* non-military service.
>However, you can wind up with non-military service if you fail to
>qualify for anything military. This would make the franchise
>unobtainable for a pacifist because he, she or it would have to risk
>being accepted for the infantry rather than get that cushy civilian job
>in the Terraforming of Hell or whatever. Whether the non-military slots
>were under military-style discipline is not discussed.
>
>Will in New Haven
I dunno. Wasn't part of the initial testing for Federal Service
psychological (or am I confusing that with the testing in "Space
Cadet" which I read last week?) I'm pretty sure there's a bit about
making sure you're competent to understand the oath before you take
it.
*Presumably* if someone is a pacifist of the sort who volunteered to
drive ambulances behind the front lines in WW I (as opposed to the
sort of pacifist who just doesn't want to get shot at) then they could
find a flavor of Federal Service that would work for them.
-Chris Zakes
Texas
I ha' harpit ye up to the throne o' God,
I ha' harpit your midmost soul in three;
I ha' harpit ye down to the Hinges o' Hell,
And -- ye -- would -- make -- a Knight o' me!
Rudyard Kipling, "The Last Rhyme of True Thomas"
As...@tds.net
<willre...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
>> "bajasteve" <steven...@sbcglobal.net> writes:
>>
>> > And I think we really need to keep in mind that the "federal service"
>> > required in Troopers was not necessarily military service. Most
>> > detractors of the book conveniently forget this little tidbit, because
>> > it doesn't blend well with their diatribes and rantings.
>>
>> And also because the boook very explicitly, and over and over again, shows
>> that it isn't true.+
>
>What the book shows is that you can't *choose* non-military service.
>However, you can wind up with non-military service if you fail to
>qualify for anything military. This would make the franchise
>unobtainable for a pacifist because he, she or it would have to risk
>being accepted for the infantry rather than get that cushy civilian job
>in the Terraforming of Hell or whatever. Whether the non-military slots
>were under military-style discipline is not discussed.
>
>Will in New Haven
I disagree with the above. A pacifist could still sign up, and
express a preference for non military jobs. THEN, if he gets assigned
to the military, he can resign, either formally and officially, or
informally by failing to come back from the 2 day leave.
You don't get a second try if you take that way out though.
As...@tds.net
>
>willre...@yahoo.com wrote:
>> David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
>> > "bajasteve" <steven...@sbcglobal.net> writes:
>> >
>> > > And I think we really need to keep in mind that the "federal service"
>> > > required in Troopers was not necessarily military service. Most
>> > > detractors of the book conveniently forget this little tidbit, because
>> > > it doesn't blend well with their diatribes and rantings.
>> >
>> > And also because the boook very explicitly, and over and over again, shows
>> > that it isn't true.+
>>
>> What the book shows is that you can't *choose* non-military service.
>> However, you can wind up with non-military service if you fail to
>> qualify for anything military. This would make the franchise
>> unobtainable for a pacifist because he, she or it would have to risk
>> being accepted for the infantry rather than get that cushy civilian job
>> in the Terraforming of Hell or whatever. Whether the non-military slots
>> were under military-style discipline is not discussed.
>>
>> Will in New Haven
>>
>I would expect that demonstrating that you're a pacifist would get you
>stuck in a non-combat type job. There would have been a way to
>accomodate Quakers or other committed pacifists.
Actually, they don't "have" to do anything Heinlein did not want them
to. It might be a good idea to accommodate Quakers and such, and
might be something Heinlein would have agreed with, but we have no
direct evidence of this.
Since MI (and other military arms) were elite, it should not be all
THAT hard to sabotage your chances of making it into these, and make
sure you end up testing survival equipment or terranizing Venus.
As...@tds.net
wrote:
>Tom wrote: "You know, I'm almost to the point of abandoning the
Yeah, I just went to the trouble of reading the whole article. As you
and some others may have noticed, there is a rather acrimonious
discussion in another thread about Republicans, Democrats, abortion,
and such. While I may not agree with everything Republicans do, I
don't exactly get along with people such as this author.
For example, have a look at his take on the Cheney hunting accident.
He says that Cheney had admitted that alcohol was involved.
Ahem...what Cheney admitted was that he had one beer with lunch. Now
if the author wants to come out and state that he thinks there was
more than that, and wants to present whatever evidence he might have,
that's fine. I may or may not agree that the evidence shows something
more sinister than one beer.
Then he goes on that Cheney claims the distance was 30 yards, but that
ballistics are not consistent with this distance. This is the first I
heard of this one. I think I can see how it might have come about
though. Cheney fired, and the other guy went down. What was his
reaction at that point? I am guessing it was along the lines of
charging over to find out how badly he was hurt, seeing if he could
render first aid, either using his cell phone to call 911 or tell
someone else to do so, and that sort of thing. Then, LATER, when
asked how far away he had been, it was probably along the lines of
"Umm...a ways...30 yards maybe? Something like that." If his FIRST
action had been to start measuring the distance, while the other guy
might be bleeding to death, THEN I would be calling for his
impeachment.
Fred J. McCall
:David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
:> "bajasteve" <steven...@sbcglobal.net> writes:
:>
:> > And I think we really need to keep in mind that the "federal service"
:> > required in Troopers was not necessarily military service. Most
:> > detractors of the book conveniently forget this little tidbit, because
:> > it doesn't blend well with their diatribes and rantings.
:>
:> And also because the boook very explicitly, and over and over again, shows
:> that it isn't true.+
:
:What the book shows is that you can't *choose* non-military service.
:However, you can wind up with non-military service if you fail to
:qualify for anything military. This would make the franchise
:unobtainable for a pacifist because he, she or it would have to risk
:being accepted for the infantry rather than get that cushy civilian job
:in the Terraforming of Hell or whatever. Whether the non-military slots
:were under military-style discipline is not discussed.
This doesn't seem quite right to me. When Johnny goes through *HE*
elects to request all military services first and during the interview
process realizes he's bombed all his top choices on his way down to
Mobile Infantry. I don't see any reason why someone couldn't list all
the NON-military choices first. Of course, there is still that chance
that they might not be qualified for any of the regular existing
'non-combat' jobs and wind up in a combat arm. At that point a true
pacifist would have to resign and simply never get their franchise.
It seems, however, that there would be no "cushy" jobs of any kind,
since the 'purpose' of the service to earn the franchise is to
demonstrate that you are, essentially, willing to put your soft pink
body at risk to aid society. So even the 'civilian' jobs available
are going to involve substantial risk of being killed or injured.
Otherwise you'd just hire civilians to do them. ANYTHING you can get
is going to involve lots of unpleasant working conditions and
substantial risk, to demonstrate your willingness to subordinate
yourself to the service of 'society'.
That's why merchant marine weren't 'federal service'. It's why nurses
probably wouldn't be (sorry, E!), but combat nurses would be.
Denny Wheeler
wrote:
>Denny:
Okay. I was disappointed, mostly. And I know all about 'just got up'
fuzzy vision and the typing it can lead to. No sweat.
djinn
confirmed pacifists, there has to be a way to give them a chance.
Otherwise the whole premise is false.
As...@tds.net
wrote:
>On 18 Feb 2006 06:41:54 -0800, an orbital mind-control laser caused
>"willre...@yahoo.com" <willre...@yahoo.com> to write:
>
>>
>>David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
>>> "bajasteve" <steven...@sbcglobal.net> writes:
>>>
>>> > And I think we really need to keep in mind that the "federal service"
>>> > required in Troopers was not necessarily military service. Most
>>> > detractors of the book conveniently forget this little tidbit, because
>>> > it doesn't blend well with their diatribes and rantings.
>>>
>>> And also because the boook very explicitly, and over and over again, shows
>>> that it isn't true.+
>>
>>What the book shows is that you can't *choose* non-military service.
>>However, you can wind up with non-military service if you fail to
>>qualify for anything military. This would make the franchise
>>unobtainable for a pacifist because he, she or it would have to risk
>>being accepted for the infantry rather than get that cushy civilian job
>>in the Terraforming of Hell or whatever. Whether the non-military slots
>>were under military-style discipline is not discussed.
>>
>>Will in New Haven
>
>I dunno. Wasn't part of the initial testing for Federal Service
>psychological (or am I confusing that with the testing in "Space
>Cadet" which I read last week?) I'm pretty sure there's a bit about
>making sure you're competent to understand the oath before you take
>it.
We don't really get a blow by blow account of all the tests
administered, but the doctor examining him explains that the only way
to fail the medical was for the examiner to decide that the candidate
was unable to understand the oath. Otherwise, the exam was to find
out which jobs he was qualifed for, since they had to take everyone
who could understand the oath, even if it was a blind person in a
wheelchair.
Most likely, there were psychological tests as well as physical ones.
The sergeant deciding Juan's ultimate disposition imposed one of sorts
- did he have a dog as a child, and did it sleep with him. Since Juan
was not the sort to outwit his mother to sneak in his dog, the
sergeant ruled out K-9 corps.
As...@tds.net
It is non canon, or maybe "semi canon", but in the interstitial
material of Expanded Universe, Heinlein states that volunteers are not
given a choice. They volunteer, then do what they are told for 2+
years.
I don't necessarily buy the above argument. Do we have to give a
chance to confirmed cowards? Confirmed lazy people? Confirmed
anarchists? People who firmly believe in warm body democracy?
And, I have pointed out why the most confirmed pacifist still has an
excellent chance, even if no special provisions are made for them.
djinn
"... but if you want to serve and I can't talk you out of it, then we
have to take you, because it's your constitutional right. "
" You can't all be real military men, we don't need that many and most
of the volunteers aren't number-one soldier material anyhow. "
Fleet Sergeant Ho, in trying not to recruit Juan Rico.
Gotta take *anybody*. They don't have to be go military.
Tank Fixer
on 17 Feb 2006 01:08:22 -0800,
Bill Dennis peoria...@gmail.com attempted to say .....
> How long has it been since you watched Starship Troopers? Perhaps you
> should again.
Why should I watch that dreck ?
If I want crappy TV I can watch survivor
--
When dealing with propaganda terminology one sometimes always speaks in
variable absolutes. This is not to be mistaken for an unbiased slant.
Tank Fixer
on Fri, 17 Feb 2006 07:50:15 -0500,
"harryfmudd [AT] comcast [DOT] net" <"harryfmudd [AT] comcast [DOT] net">
"harryfmudd [AT] comcast [DOT] net" <"harryfmudd [AT] comcast [DOT] net">
attempted to say .....
> I get the impression from other sources that Starship Troopers is
> "fascist" because it puts the government in the hands of the "military."
> But anyone who has read the novel with a reasonably open mind, knows
> that the novel does _not_ put the government in the hands of the
> military - people don't get the franchise until they become civilians
> again. It seems to me this is "military government" only to people who
> set out to demonize the military, and, presumably, "fascist" because
> that's a favorite abusive term of the people doing the demonizing.
And that any person can join. With the government being required to find some
job they can perform
Fred J. McCall
:Most likely, there were psychological tests as well as physical ones.
:The sergeant deciding Juan's ultimate disposition imposed one of sorts
:- did he have a dog as a child, and did it sleep with him. Since Juan
:was not the sort to outwit his mother to sneak in his dog, the
:sergeant ruled out K-9 corps.
I didn't outsmart my mother to sneak my dog in, either. When she
tried to make him stay outside and went out and stayed with him and
refused to come in the house until he could.
Since it was winter in Colorado, she got concerned and decided to let
us both come in.
I miss my dog....
--
"I've always known. I'll die alone."
-- Admiral James T. Kirk
Fred J. McCall
:Couple of quotes from SST.
But if they're sent military, that's where they go and they better
tough it out because there are no second chances. See the case of Ted
<I forget the last name>, who thought it was all stupid but got sent
MI anyway.
PHYSICAL debility might get you a non-military assignment. Pacifism
is a choice.
djinn
Fred J. McCall wrote:
> "djinn" <dje...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> :Couple of quotes from SST.
> :
> :"... but if you want to serve and I can't talk you out of it, then we
> :have to take you, because it's your constitutional right. "
> :
> :" You can't all be real military men, we don't need that many and most
> :of the volunteers aren't number-one soldier material anyhow. "
> :
> :Fleet Sergeant Ho, in trying not to recruit Juan Rico.
> :
> :Gotta take *anybody*. They don't have to be go military.
>
> But if they're sent military, that's where they go and they better
> tough it out because there are no second chances. See the case of Ted
> <I forget the last name>, who thought it was all stupid but got sent
> MI anyway.
>
politics, so a combat slot whould have been a glamorous entry on his
resume. The last is speculation of course.
> PHYSICAL debility might get you a non-military assignment. Pacifism
> is a choice.
>
But it was a pacifists right to perform Fed Service. Insisting on
combat service is the same as denying his right. ST was pretty explicit
that MI was considered elite service (by the MI). They wouldn't want a
pacifist. ST made it clear that there were plenty of dirty, dangerous
jobs that didn't require combat.
Fred J. McCall
:Fred J. McCall wrote:
:>
:> PHYSICAL debility might get you a non-military assignment. Pacifism
:> is a choice.
:
:But it was a pacifists right to perform Fed Service. Insisting on
:combat service is the same as denying his right. ST was pretty explicit
:that MI was considered elite service (by the MI). They wouldn't want a
:pacifist. ST made it clear that there were plenty of dirty, dangerous
:jobs that didn't require combat.
That's right; it's his right to perform service. However, it is *NOT*
his right to be allowed to dictate the form of that service based on
his own opinions. That's sort of the point of it, after all.
If a pacifist can do that, how about an anarchist? After all,
accommodating the anarchist would be diametrically opposed to the
whole POINT of requiring service for a franchise.
--
You have never lived until you have almost died.
Life has a special meaning that the protected
will never know.
willre...@yahoo.com
As...@tds.net wrote:
> On 18 Feb 2006 06:41:54 -0800, "willre...@yahoo.com"
> <willre...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
> >> "bajasteve" <steven...@sbcglobal.net> writes:
> >>
> >> > And I think we really need to keep in mind that the "federal service"
> >> > required in Troopers was not necessarily military service. Most
> >> > detractors of the book conveniently forget this little tidbit, because
> >> > it doesn't blend well with their diatribes and rantings.
> >>
> >> And also because the boook very explicitly, and over and over again, shows
> >> that it isn't true.+
> >
> >What the book shows is that you can't *choose* non-military service.
> >However, you can wind up with non-military service if you fail to
> >qualify for anything military. This would make the franchise
> >unobtainable for a pacifist because he, she or it would have to risk
> >being accepted for the infantry rather than get that cushy civilian job
> >in the Terraforming of Hell or whatever. Whether the non-military slots
> >were under military-style discipline is not discussed.
> >
> >Will in New Haven
>
> I disagree with the above. A pacifist could still sign up, and
> express a preference for non military jobs. THEN, if he gets assigned
> to the military, he can resign, either formally and officially, or
> informally by failing to come back from the 2 day leave.
That is clearer than what I said. I didn't mean that he or she would
have to serve in the combat arm. The risk would be being accepted for a
combat job, having to resign or destert and therefore never getting the
franchise.
Will in New Haven
--
"If I listened long enough to you,
I'd find a way to believe it was all true,
KNOWIN' that you lied, straight-faced while I cried,
Still I'd try to find a reason to believe."
Tim Hardin - "Reason to believe
Howard C. Berkowitz
<moon...@earthlink.net> wrote:
A WWII conscientious objector:
The President of the United States in the name of The Congress takes
pleasure in presenting the Medal of Honor to
DOSS, DESMOND T.
Rank and organization: Private First Class, U.S. Army, Medical
Detachment, 307th Infantry, 77th Infantry Division.
Place and date: Near Urasoe Mura, Okinawa, Ryukyu Islands, 29 April-21
May 1945.
Entered service at: Lynchburg, Va.
Birth: Lynchburg, Va.
G.O. No.: 97, 1 November 1945.
Citation: Private First Class, U.S. Army, Medical Detachment, 307th
Infantry, 77th Infantry Division. He was a company aid man when the
lst Battalion assaulted a jagged escarpment 400 feet high. As our
troops gained the summit, a heavy concentration of artillery, mortar
and machinegun fire crashed into them, inflicting approximately 75
casualties and driving the others back. Pfc. Doss refused to seek
cover and remained in the fire-swept area with the many stricken,
carrying them 1 by 1 to the edge of the escarpment and there lowering
them on a rope-supported litter down the face of a cliff to friendly
hands. On 2 May, he exposed himself to heavy rifle and mortar fire in
rescuing a wounded man 200 yards forward of the lines on the same
escarpment; and 2 days later he treated 4 men who had been cut down
while assaulting a strongly defended cave, advancing through a shower
of grenades to within 8 yards of enemy forces in a cave's mouth, where
he dressed his comrades' wounds before making 4 separate trips under
fire to evacuate them to safety. On 5 May, he unhesitatingly braved
enemy shelling and small arms fire to assist an artillery officer. He
applied bandages, moved his patient to a spot that offered protection
from small arms fire and, while artillery and mortar shells fell close
by, painstakingly administered plasma. Later that day, when an
American was severely wounded by fire from a cave, Pfc. Doss crawled
to him where he had fallen 25 feet from the enemy position, rendered
aid, and carried him 100 yards to safety while continually exposed to
enemy fire. On 21 May, in a night attack on high ground near Shuri, he
remained in exposed territory while the rest of his company took
cover, fearlessly risking the chance that he would be mistaken for an
infiltrating Japanese and giving aid to the injured until he was
himself seriously wounded in the legs by the explosion of a grenade.
Rather than call another aid man from cover, he cared for his own
injuries and waited 5 hours before litter bearers reached him and
started carrying him to cover. The trio was caught in an enemy tank
attack and Pfc. Doss, seeing a more critically wounded man nearby,
crawled off the litter; and directed the bearers to give their first
attention to the other man. Awaiting the litter bearers' return, he was
again struck, this time suffering a compound fracture of 1 arm. With
magnificent fortitude he bound a rifle stock to his shattered arm as a
splint and then crawled 300 yards over rough terrain to the aid
station. Through his outstanding bravery and unflinching determination
in the face of desperately dangerous conditions Pfc. Doss saved the
lives of many soldiers. His name became a symbol throughout the 77th
Infantry Division for outstanding gallantry far above and beyond the
call of duty.
lal_truckee
> "djinn" <dje...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> :Fred J. McCall wrote:
> :>
> :> PHYSICAL debility might get you a non-military assignment. Pacifism
> :> is a choice.
> :
> :But it was a pacifists right to perform Fed Service. Insisting on
> :combat service is the same as denying his right. ST was pretty explicit
> :that MI was considered elite service (by the MI). They wouldn't want a
> :pacifist. ST made it clear that there were plenty of dirty, dangerous
> :jobs that didn't require combat.
>
> That's right; it's his right to perform service. However, it is *NOT*
> his right to be allowed to dictate the form of that service based on
> his own opinions. That's sort of the point of it, after all.
>
> If a pacifist can do that, how about an anarchist? After all,
> accommodating the anarchist would be diametrically opposed to the
> whole POINT of requiring service for a franchise.
You missed the whole point of the testing the Fed did on applicants.
From the tests they _know_ what the applicant is appropriate for. They
would no more put an anarchist or pacifist in MI than they'd put Juan in
K9 Core. It all works out.
lal_truckee
>
> Most likely, there were psychological tests as well as physical ones.
> The sergeant deciding Juan's ultimate disposition imposed one of sorts
> - did he have a dog as a child, and did it sleep with him. Since Juan
> was not the sort to outwit his mother to sneak in his dog, the
> sergeant ruled out K-9 corps.
Actually Johnnie had already taken the psych tests - the recruiter was
using the bit about the dog to demonstrate the validity of the psych
tests and prep Johnnie for his MI fate.
willre...@yahoo.com
That is not logical. If pacifism keeps you from carrying out your end
of the deal, you don't accept it. You haven't been excluded; you have
made a decision. I don't KNOW that they don't make provisions for
pacifists but there is no proof that they do and "everyone has a
chance" is not the same as "we will bend the terms to fit your
beliefs."
Tank Fixer
on Sun, 19 Feb 2006 00:05:56 -0500,
Howard C. Berkowitz h...@gettcomm.com attempted to say .....
An honorable man.
Fred J. McCall
:Fred J. McCall wrote:
So where *would* they put an anarchist? Remember, it can't be
anything with the primary purpose of 'helping society', since that
would be against the anarchists' principles....
Just by the way, lots of people who didn't want to fight and thought
they were pacifists have wound up in combat arms and done just fine.
The way you find out if they're real pacifists is that you dump them
into a hot LZ and see if they suddenly decide that fighting is ok when
it's fight or die.
You'd be surprised how few real pacifists there are.
--
"Now watch as the ball revolves and the nighttime falls.
Again the hunt begins, Again the blood wind calls.
By and by, the morning sun will rise,
But the darkness never goes from some men's eyes."
-- "Throwing Stones", The Grateful Dead
Mike Van Pelt
Howard C. Berkowitz <h...@gettcomm.com> wrote:
>A WWII conscientious objector:
>
>The President of the United States in the name of The Congress takes
>pleasure in presenting the Medal of Honor to
>
> DOSS, DESMOND T.
[extensive record of "above and beyond the call of duty" deleted]
Wow.
That's one to keep for the next time someone makes disparaging
remarks about conscientious objectors.
--
Tagon: "Where's your sense of adventure?" | Mike Van Pelt
Kevyn: "It died under mysterious circumstances. | mvp at calweb.com
My sense of self-preservation found the body, | KE6BVH
but assures me it has an airtight alibi." (schlockmercenary.com)
Bill Dennis
Tank Fixer wrote:
> In article <1140167302.2...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> on 17 Feb 2006 01:08:22 -0800,
> Bill Dennis peoria...@gmail.com attempted to say .....
>
> > How long has it been since you watched Starship Troopers? Perhaps you
> > should again.
>
> Why should I watch that dreck ?
>
> If I want crappy TV I can watch survivor
>
Mmmm I didn't say that.
But I did reread Starship Troopers tonight. I used a highlighting pen
on every instance in which the nature of "Federal Service" is
duscussed. No where is there any evidence that people could join
specifically to do anything other than be in the military. There were
tons of military jobs discussed that mirrored civilian jobs. But it was
testing that determined where you were assigned. Again and again, the
novel makes it clear that the the right to vote went to military
veterans (it's the whole point of the book) even if they were given
make work jobs.
No. Sorry folks. "Federal Service" meant serving in the military, even
if it meant a non combat role.
If there is a specific passage that says differently, please tell me
where.
Mike Van Pelt
Bill Dennis <peoria...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Tom wrote: "You know, I'm almost to the point of abandoning the
>traditional "right" and "left" as having outlived their usefulness.
Check this out, a short popularization by Jerry Pournelle
of part of his Political Science PhD dissertation:
http://www.baen.com/chapters/axes.htm
David M. Silver
"Bill Dennis" <peoria...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Tank Fixer wrote:
> > In article <1140167302.2...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> > on 17 Feb 2006 01:08:22 -0800,
> > Bill Dennis peoria...@gmail.com attempted to say .....
> >
> > > How long has it been since you watched Starship Troopers? Perhaps you
> > > should again.
> >
> > Why should I watch that dreck ?
> >
> > If I want crappy TV I can watch survivor
> >
>
>
> Mmmm I didn't say that.
>
> But I did reread Starship Troopers tonight. I used a highlighting pen
> on every instance in which the nature of "Federal Service" is
> duscussed. No where is there any evidence that people could join
> specifically to do anything other than be in the military.
Sure there was, Bill. If you were blind, in a wheelchair, they'd find
something difficult, indeed onerous, for you to do, even if it were
counting caterpillar hairs by feel. I cannot think of any true military
application of the foregoing, nor can you. You joined the Federal
Service to serve in the military if, and only if, you proved to be
qualified and fully motivated to serve and if, and only if, they could
afford to try you out in one of the limited training slots available. If
you failed to qualify--and it's pretty clear that the vast majority did
fail (Rico, who really was better than the average, although not well
educated, failed to qualify for all the technical navy slots he listed,
and the wash out rate for M.I. in basic and advanced training approached
ninety-five percent), you'd wind up a janitor scrubbing floors in
Antarctica, or you'd be cannon fodder for suit testing on Titan, or you
could fight your war against bugs terra-forming the analogues of Venus,
or war against vacuum and cold on analogues of Ganymede, or whatever
else might be found out there. None of that mirrors military jobs, if
you generally eliminate housekeeping aspects of military life by hiring
beans (who needs to do K.P., spitshine floors, and paint rocks around
the flagpole M.I. maroon and blue?), as Heinlein makes clear you do. If
you happen to have a surplus of applicants who fail to qualify for the
true military jobs, then of course you use them up for their minimum two
year terms doing what they can before you unnecessarily hire the more
unskilled beans. You might even train them to count beans, if that's
what beans you're hiring this week are to do.
> There were
> tons of military jobs discussed that mirrored civilian jobs. But it was
> testing that determined where you were assigned. Again and again, the
> novel makes it clear that the the right to vote went to military
> veterans (it's the whole point of the book) even if they were given
> make work jobs.
>
If you care to use "military" advisedly, to cover janitors, warm bodies
to test suits, people to paint rocks maroon and blue, etc., I suppose
you can; but no one in a general sense will agree with you. Carmen still
gets her franchise if she scrubs floors for the term prescribed. Carl
would have gotten his franchise for working as a lab tech, and even if
the technical work had some military application it was still lab work
even if he did die when the bugs took out the lab.
> No. Sorry folks. "Federal Service" meant serving in the military, even
> if it meant a non combat role.
>
That's not clearly apparent from the text. If Carmen wound up scrubbing
floors, it's not stated that she would be under military supervision or
discipline. It's rather unlikely in my opinion they'd waste highly
trained M.I. or Navy personnel to detach to Antarctica to supervise
floor scrubbing. Too few and too valuable, and the real skills such
types would possess are generally inapplicable and possessed by lesser
trained civilians as well. Ace could supervise floor scrubbing in his
sleep (and probably would), but his job is to lead a section in combat,
a horse of a far more difficult hue. It's possible there were navy types
detached for duty of a scientific or engineering nature on Pluto; but as
Heinlein's own work at the Navy Aircraft facility in Pennsylvania during
World War II demonstrates, you don't have to be active duty Navy to do
that work. And Heinlein wound up supervising Navy officers on projects
he worked upon, e.g., his future wife, among others.
> If there is a specific passage that says differently, please tell me
> where.
The references above and your reasoning acuity should be sufficient.
--
David M. Silver
http://www.heinleinsociety.org
"The Lieutenant expects your names to shine!"
Robert Anson Heinlein, USNA '29
Lt.(jg), USN, R'td
djinn
willre...@yahoo.com wrote:
> djinn wrote:
> > Everyone has a chance at Federal Service. Since everyone includes
> > confirmed pacifists, there has to be a way to give them a chance.
> > Otherwise the whole premise is false.
>
> That is not logical. If pacifism keeps you from carrying out your end
> of the deal, you don't accept it. You haven't been excluded; you have
> made a decision. I don't KNOW that they don't make provisions for
> pacifists but there is no proof that they do and "everyone has a
> chance" is not the same as "we will bend the terms to fit your
> beliefs."
>
MI, you don't automatically lose the franchise, you get another post.
(and something like 95% did) A genuine pacifist wouldn't be suited for
combat service, stick 'em in the terraforming corps and let them serve
it out. It fits right in with the way Fed Service is described. Anyone
will be given a post they can fill, all they have to do is serve it
out. The only apparent guarantee is that it will test their willingness
to put up with ( and maybe survive) their term.
djinn
Bill Dennis wrote:
> Mmmm I didn't say that.
>
> But I did reread Starship Troopers tonight. I used a highlighting pen
> on every instance in which the nature of "Federal Service" is
> duscussed. No where is there any evidence that people could join
> specifically to do anything other than be in the military. There were
> tons of military jobs discussed that mirrored civilian jobs. But it was
> testing that determined where you were assigned. Again and again, the
> novel makes it clear that the the right to vote went to military
> veterans (it's the whole point of the book) even if they were given
> make work jobs.
>
> No. Sorry folks. "Federal Service" meant serving in the military, even
> if it meant a non combat role.
>
> If there is a specific passage that says differently, please tell me
> where.
>From the (non) recruiters speech to Rico:
" You can't all be real military men, we don't need that many and most
of the volunteers aren't number-one soldier material anyhow. "
That's how it reads to me, anyway.
Bill Dennis
jobs for them. The boot wash out who ended up a cook, for example.
That doesn't mean there was a non-military, public-serve oriented
branch of Federal Service.
There can't be. The whole premise of the book was that military vets
made for better voters.
David Wright Sr.
news:1140373209.8...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com:
No Bill, the premise of the book that people who were willing to sacrifice
themselves through military service or hard labor or whatnot made better
citizens on the 'average'.
David Wright Sr.
--
A structure of language perpetuating identification reactions keeps us on
the level of primitive or prescientific types of evaluation, stressing
similarities and neglecting (not consciously), differences. Thus, we do not
"see" differences and react as if two objects, persons, or happenings were
"the Same".
Alfred Korzybski , "The Role of Language in the Perceptual Process"
Bill Dennis
Still, I can find no passage that describes Federal Service as anything
other than military.
Dr. Rufo
djinn wrote:
> willre...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
>>David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
>>
>>>"bajasteve" <steven...@sbcglobal.net> writes:
>>>
>>>
>>>>And I think we really need to keep in mind that the "federal service"
>>>>required in Troopers was not necessarily military service. Most
>>>>detractors of the book conveniently forget this little tidbit, because
>>>>it doesn't blend well with their diatribes and rantings.
>>>
>>>And also because the boook very explicitly, and over and over again, shows
>>>that it isn't true.+
>>
>>What the book shows is that you can't *choose* non-military service.
>>However, you can wind up with non-military service if you fail to
>>qualify for anything military. This would make the franchise
>>unobtainable for a pacifist because he, she or it would have to risk
>>being accepted for the infantry rather than get that cushy civilian job
>>in the Terraforming of Hell or whatever. Whether the non-military slots
>>were under military-style discipline is not discussed.
>>
>>Will in New Haven
>>
>
> I would expect that demonstrating that you're a pacifist would get you
> stuck in a non-combat type job. There would have been a way to
> accomodate Quakers or other committed pacifists.
>
> Rico requested military type jobs, he could have asked for terraforming
> or whatever first. He might have got it. Then we'd have had Starship
> Ditchdiggers. Not as catchy a title.
>
"Starship Seebees"? < WEG >
Rufe
harryfmudd [AT] comcast [DOT] net
> In article <1140277580.5...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
> Bill Dennis <peoria...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>Tom wrote: "You know, I'm almost to the point of abandoning the
>>traditional "right" and "left" as having outlived their usefulness.
>
>
> Check this out, a short popularization by Jerry Pournelle
> of part of his Political Science PhD dissertation:
>
> http://www.baen.com/chapters/axes.htm
>
Good article! Thanks!
One axis is certainly an oversimplification. My opinion is that the
difference between liberal and conservative is one of perception of
risk, rather than of "left" and "right" - specifically the perception of
the risk of doing nothing. The liberal's first thought is to fix the
problem. The conservative's is to wait until we're absolutely sure. The
conservative continues to use saccharine, regardless of reports it might
be unhealthy. The liberal immediately rushes to save us from saccharine
with cyclamates, which had to be pulled before the year was out.
I'm not sure this translates exactly to Pournelle's vertical axis, but I
do note that his "socialists," "welfare liberals," and "various
conservatives" differ on the vertical axis, but are pretty much the same
on the horizontal.
Tom Wyant
David Dyer-Bennet
> David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
> > "bajasteve" <steven...@sbcglobal.net> writes:
> >
> > > And I think we really need to keep in mind that the "federal service"
> > > required in Troopers was not necessarily military service. Most
> > > detractors of the book conveniently forget this little tidbit, because
> > > it doesn't blend well with their diatribes and rantings.
> >
> > And also because the boook very explicitly, and over and over again, shows
> > that it isn't true.+
>
> What the book shows is that you can't *choose* non-military service.
> However, you can wind up with non-military service if you fail to
> qualify for anything military. This would make the franchise
> unobtainable for a pacifist because he, she or it would have to risk
> being accepted for the infantry rather than get that cushy civilian job
> in the Terraforming of Hell or whatever. Whether the non-military slots
> were under military-style discipline is not discussed.
True, there are the fake high-risk jobs.
"A term of service isn't a kiddie camp; it's either real military
service, rough and dangerous even in peacetime . . . or a most
unreasonable facsimile thereof."
--
David Dyer-Bennet, <mailto:dd...@dd-b.net>, <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/>
RKBA: <http://noguns-nomoney.com/> <http://www.dd-b.net/carry/>
Pics: <http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/> <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/>
Dragaera/Steven Brust: <http://dragaera.info/>
David Dyer-Bennet
> willre...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
> > > "bajasteve" <steven...@sbcglobal.net> writes:
> > >
> > > > And I think we really need to keep in mind that the "federal service"
> > > > required in Troopers was not necessarily military service. Most
> > > > detractors of the book conveniently forget this little tidbit, because
> > > > it doesn't blend well with their diatribes and rantings.
> > >
> > > And also because the boook very explicitly, and over and over again, shows
> > > that it isn't true.+
> >
> > What the book shows is that you can't *choose* non-military service.
> > However, you can wind up with non-military service if you fail to
> > qualify for anything military. This would make the franchise
> > unobtainable for a pacifist because he, she or it would have to risk
> > being accepted for the infantry rather than get that cushy civilian job
> > in the Terraforming of Hell or whatever. Whether the non-military slots
> > were under military-style discipline is not discussed.
> >
> > Will in New Haven
> >
> I would expect that demonstrating that you're a pacifist would get you
> stuck in a non-combat type job. There would have been a way to
> accomodate Quakers or other committed pacifists.
That's completely contrary to the basic thrust of the book's argument.
"Since sovereign franchise is the ultimate in human authority, we
insure that all who wield it accept the ultimate in social
responsibility -- we require each person who wishes to exert control
over the state to wager his own life -- and lose it, if need be -- to
save the life of the state. The maximum responsibility a human can
accept is thus equated to the ultimate authority a human can
exert. Yin and yang, perfect and equal."
> Rico requested military type jobs, he could have asked for terraforming
> or whatever first. He might have got it. Then we'd have had Starship
> Ditchdiggers. Not as catchy a title.
Well, I think you mean "combat" rather than "military". I'd think
there could be exciting stories about terraforming; in fact there must
be lots.
David Dyer-Bennet
Yep, I did that a few decades ago and reached about the same
conclusion.
Here's my article, mostly quotes with citations:
<http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/misc/strooper-federal-service.html>. As
you see, I've updated it with the best some opponents have been able
to point out (though, since it's my article, I do tend to get the last
word in).
David Dyer-Bennet
A lot of that *does* mirror current military jobs, actually. And one
of the MI training class that washes out physically ends up as a navy
cook, you'll remember.
There certainly *are* clear statements that nobody is turned down, and
the things some of them are given to do are completely non-military.
The key statement on that subject, I think, is "A term of service
isn't a kiddie camp; it's either real military service, rough and
dangerous even in peacetime . . . or a most unreasonable facsimile
thereof." To me that says that, while the non-military jobs do exist,
for those few really stubborn people who insist on trying to earn a
franchise but who cannot qualify for any real military job (which
includes, like our military, all sorts of non-combat roles; consider
the Army Corps of Engineers), they are carefully designed to be as
hard *and as dangerous* as the military jobs.
David Dyer-Bennet
> On 18 Feb 2006 01:29:27 -0800, "Bill Dennis" <peoria...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >I'm just saying that I recall some discussion in A.F.H. about this
> >topic and there was some controversy over whether or the ACTUAL BOOK
> >said there were forms of qualifying service that did not include
> >military service.
>
> There is no controversy whatsoever. It says so multiple times, quite
> clearly.
There certainly is controversy. And I can't tell from your paragraph
there which side you think is clearly right, even.
David Dyer-Bennet
> Everyone has a chance at Federal Service. Since everyone includes
> confirmed pacifists, there has to be a way to give them a chance.
> Otherwise the whole premise is false.
Also confirmed cowards, and confirmed lazy slobs, right? I think they
all get a *chance* at it -- but I doubt they get custom-configured
jobs to meet their preferences. Any more than pacifists do.
David Wright Sr.
> That's WHY vets made for better citizens.
>
> Still, I can find no passage that describes Federal Service as anything
> other than military.
>
>
I guess that the real problem lies in interpretation as to whether or not
_non combatant auxiliary_ forces are military or not. It is specifically
stated that "they have not been subjected to the full rigors of military
discipline, they have merely been harried, overworked and endangered", and
"that in peacetime most veterans come from non-combatant auxiliary
services."
I believe that Heinlein was writing primarily about the "military
services" and failed to make clear his intentions about the non-military
part even though he felt that he had done so.
What did the women who made up 40% of the Federal Service people on
Sanctuary do? Were they military?
David Wright Sr.
--
In science, "opinions" are tolerated when and only when facts are lacking.
In this case, we have all the facts necessary. We have only to collect them
and analyse them, rejecting mere "opinions" as cheap and unworthy. Such
as understand this lesson will know how to act for the benefit of all.
Alfred Korzybski, _Manhood of Humanity_(1921)
lal_truckee
>
> So where *would* they put an anarchist? Remember, it can't be
> anything with the primary purpose of 'helping society', since that
> would be against the anarchists' principles....
Sounds like you haven't actually read very deeply in Anarchist writings
or studied related history?
Be that as it may, we do have the canonical example of "Counting the
fuzz on a caterpillar by touch" - even satisfies your inaccurate
proscription against "helping society."
lal_truckee
> "djinn" <dje...@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> Everyone has a chance at Federal Service. Since everyone includes
>> confirmed pacifists, there has to be a way to give them a chance.
>> Otherwise the whole premise is false.
>
> Also confirmed cowards, and confirmed lazy slobs, right? I think they
> all get a *chance* at it -- but I doubt they get custom-configured
> jobs to meet their preferences. Any more than pacifists do.
[Quote]But if you want to serve and I can't talk you out of it, then we
have to take you, because that's your constitutional right.[Unquote]
The text is clear. Perhaps a re-read is in order?
lal_truckee
>
> What did the women who made up 40% of the Federal Service people on
> Sanctuary do? Were they military?
Perhaps we can extrapolate from two organizations Heinlein discussed
elsewhere?
The WENCHES:
"Women's Emergency National Corps, Hospitality & Entertainment Section"
or the successor group, the Space Angels:
"Auxiliary Nursing Group, Extraterrestrial Legions"
As...@tds.net
>Couple of quotes from SST.
>
>"... but if you want to serve and I can't talk you out of it, then we
>have to take you, because it's your constitutional right. "
>
>" You can't all be real military men, we don't need that many and most
>of the volunteers aren't number-one soldier material anyhow. "
>
>Fleet Sergeant Ho, in trying not to recruit Juan Rico.
>
>Gotta take *anybody*. They don't have to be go military.
As others have pointed out, there is a BIG difference between TAKING
everyone, giving EVERYONE a chance, and tailoring jobs to fit the
preferences of candidates. I think it is both probable and possible
for the Terran Federation to take a "take it or leave it" attitude
when it comes to the jobs assigned, as long as the candidate is
physically capable of the assigned job.
If that assigned job is MI, and the person says "Sorry, I'm a
pacifist, put me into a non combat job" then I see no obligation on
the part of the TF to say "Ok then, how about terranizing Venus?"
They MIGHT do that, but then again they might say "all right, if
that's your final word, your papers get stamped 'term not completed
satisfactorily'. Is that what you want?"
HOWEVER...is the MI or any or any other combat arm going to be all
THAT interested in someone who does not list it as a preference?
There is probably no need for any formal policy on this.
*** Free account sponsored by SecureIX.com ***
*** Encrypt your Internet usage with a free VPN account from http://www.SecureIX.com ***
As...@tds.net
wrote:
The text is certainly clear, but your point is less clear, at least to
me. Are you asserting that pacifists get no special jobs, they can
take or leave whatever assignment they get, or are you asserting
something else?
Norman Bullen
_Building Harlequin's Moon_ by Larry Niven and Brenda Cooper, Tor Books,
IBSN: 978-0765-31266-2.
Norm
--
--
To reply, change domain to an adult feline.
As...@tds.net
wrote:
There is one aspect of this that I don't think is all that clear from
the text. If a normally non combat unit ends up in a combat
situation, are they expected to fight as best they can, or just to
take cover? I don't know the answer to this.
For example, let's say that labor battalions are terranizing Venus.
Let's also say that MI are stationed there, and then the bugs land.
The MI obviously swing into action, but the labor battalions probably
have the skills and equipment to do some combat engineering type jobs.
Are they expected to do so?
Brian.D...@gmail.com
training because of his female friend who was going for that job. The
thing is you are tested, much more thoroughly than the ASVAB does and
you are placed according to the government's needs combined with your
abilities.
They only mentioned a few jobs, but it was clear that just about any
job you could imagine was availible, if you have the skills for it and
the government needs such a position filled. It was not all military.
RAH simple focused on the military aspect. Remember he was a graduate
of the Naval Acadamy.
As far as citizenship went, only those who served their time in the
government, honorably, and were discharged were citizens. Only citizens
could vote and run for public office. He was very specific about that
and had Rico and his professor at the start of the book go over that,
as I recall in the classroom. I cannot find my copy right now so cannot
find the page to quote from. Or maybe it was much later, but it was
discussed.
djinn, you are right about the issue with giving Rico other jobs,
Asteroid Prospector just wouldn't have been very meaningfulf, and
Heinlein talked about that in other books often enough as well.
Brian.D...@gmail.com
simply not show up and nothing would ever happen except that they would
forever forfeit their chance at citizenship, the franchise, and all
that came with it.
The recruiting sgt made that very clear when he was talking to them
when they signed up.
David Wright Sr.
@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net:
I knew that someone would bring that up ;-)>
Also, remember Helen Walker and the Amazons from _Tunnel In The Sky_, so
maybe a lot of those women were from the female equivalent of the MI.
David Wright Sr.
--
There are different kinds of interpretations of history and different
schools of philosophy. All of them have contributed something to human
progress, but none of them has been able to give the world a basic
philosophy embracing the whole progress of science and establishing the
life of man upon the abiding foundation of Fact.
David Wright Sr.
> David Wright Sr. wrote:
I knew that someone would bring that up ;-)
However, remember Helen Walker and the Amazons in _Tunnel In The Sky_. Maybe
some of those 40% were from the female equivalent of the MI.
David Wright Sr.
--
There are different kinds of interpretations of history and different schools
of philosophy. All of them have contributed something to human progress, but
none of them has been able to give the world a basic philosophy embracing the
whole progress of science and establishing the life of man upon the abiding
foundation of Fact.
As...@tds.net
>
>willre...@yahoo.com wrote:
>> David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
>> > "bajasteve" <steven...@sbcglobal.net> writes:
>> >
>> > > And I think we really need to keep in mind that the "federal service"
>> > > required in Troopers was not necessarily military service. Most
>> > > detractors of the book conveniently forget this little tidbit, because
>> > > it doesn't blend well with their diatribes and rantings.
>> >
>> > And also because the boook very explicitly, and over and over again, shows
>> > that it isn't true.+
>>
>> What the book shows is that you can't *choose* non-military service.
>> However, you can wind up with non-military service if you fail to
>> qualify for anything military. This would make the franchise
>> unobtainable for a pacifist because he, she or it would have to risk
>> being accepted for the infantry rather than get that cushy civilian job
>> in the Terraforming of Hell or whatever. Whether the non-military slots
>> were under military-style discipline is not discussed.
>>
>> Will in New Haven
>>
>I would expect that demonstrating that you're a pacifist would get you
>stuck in a non-combat type job. There would have been a way to
>accomodate Quakers or other committed pacifists.
>
>Rico requested military type jobs, he could have asked for terraforming
>or whatever first. He might have got it. Then we'd have had Starship
>Ditchdiggers. Not as catchy a title.
I'm going to reply to this again. The more I think about it, the more
it seems to me that, NO, there would be no special provisions made for
pacifists.
One of the things discussed in Rico's high school H&MP class is that
government is force and violence. Ultimately, the government can and
will kill people who will not comply with its laws. They may make
multiple attempts to enforce compliance by non lethal means, but
ultimately government boils down to "obey or we kill you."
A pacifist should have no interest or desire in setting the standards
that will result in these death threats.
As...@tds.net
<dwri...@alltel.net> wrote:
>lal_truckee <lal_t...@yahoo.com> wrote in news:fE7Kf.34730$F_3.12900
>@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net:
>
>> David Wright Sr. wrote:
>>>
>>> What did the women who made up 40% of the Federal Service people on
>>> Sanctuary do? Were they military?
>>
>> Perhaps we can extrapolate from two organizations Heinlein discussed
>> elsewhere?
>>
>> The WENCHES:
>> "Women's Emergency National Corps, Hospitality & Entertainment Section"
>>
>> or the successor group, the Space Angels:
>> "Auxiliary Nursing Group, Extraterrestrial Legions"
>>
>
>I knew that someone would bring that up ;-)
>
>However, remember Helen Walker and the Amazons in _Tunnel In The Sky_. Maybe
>some of those 40% were from the female equivalent of the MI.
This is something that has been discussed before: was the MI
exclusively male? We only saw male MI, but does that rule out all
female units, or maybe even mixed units?
willre...@yahoo.com
Where does it say that they can't make him MI, whether he thinks he can
hack it or not? If they don't want a pacifist they just assign him to
MI and wait for him to leave. I don't know whether they would DO it
that way but they could. Or they could give him one of the tough,
dangerous non-combat jobs, which is much more likely.
Will in New Haven
--
About Starship Troopers: "If a novel about a dedicated professional
soldier does not leave the impression that warfare is the only real
occupation for a real man, it's a failure." James Blish
Vance P. Frickey
"Fred J. McCall" <fmc...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:n7ufv1lbs0lpppqmo...@4ax.com...
> "djinn" <dje...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> :Fred J. McCall wrote:
> :>
> :> PHYSICAL debility might get you a non-military
> assignment. Pacifism
> :> is a choice.
> :
> :But it was a pacifists right to perform Fed Service.
> Insisting on
> :combat service is the same as denying his right. ST was
> pretty explicit
> :that MI was considered elite service (by the MI). They
> wouldn't want a
> :pacifist. ST made it clear that there were plenty of
> dirty, dangerous
> :jobs that didn't require combat.
>
> That's right; it's his right to perform service. However,
> it is *NOT*
> his right to be allowed to dictate the form of that
> service based on
> his own opinions. That's sort of the point of it, after
> all.
>
> If a pacifist can do that, how about an anarchist? After
> all,
> accommodating the anarchist would be diametrically opposed
> to the
> whole POINT of requiring service for a franchise.
A true anarchist wouldn't choose a franchise in any event.
Gk. "an-archos" = Eng. "no governance"
Someone who disdains the idea of government could not
ethically (by his own ethics) participate in a government,
even to the extent of voting in one.
That there are organizations which oppose the idea of
secular democracy and yet can muster enough votes in a
secular democracy to win election points to the hypocrisy of
those who play the game with no intention of playing by the
rules if they win.
Although the idea of an anarchist gaming the system in the
society of _SST_ - to gain the franchise in order to
overthrow the Federation - would be dramatically
interesting.
--
Vance P. Frickey
remove "nospam" from listed Email address to send mail
"There is an uncomfortable similarity between Damocles, who
had everything but security, and the West today. The main
difference is that Damocles could see the sword that
threatened him and the thin thread that restrained it, while
today both sword and thread seem unreal to all too many."
Herman Kahn, _On Thermonuclear War_.
Chris Zakes
caused As...@tds.net to write:
>On Sun, 19 Feb 2006 20:37:04 -0500, "David Wright Sr."
><dwri...@alltel.net> wrote:
>
>>lal_truckee <lal_t...@yahoo.com> wrote in news:fE7Kf.34730$F_3.12900
>>@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net:
>>
>>> David Wright Sr. wrote:
>>>>
>>>> What did the women who made up 40% of the Federal Service people on
>>>> Sanctuary do? Were they military?
>>>
>>> Perhaps we can extrapolate from two organizations Heinlein discussed
>>> elsewhere?
>>>
>>> The WENCHES:
>>> "Women's Emergency National Corps, Hospitality & Entertainment Section"
>>>
>>> or the successor group, the Space Angels:
>>> "Auxiliary Nursing Group, Extraterrestrial Legions"
>>>
>>
>>I knew that someone would bring that up ;-)
>>
>>However, remember Helen Walker and the Amazons in _Tunnel In The Sky_. Maybe
>>some of those 40% were from the female equivalent of the MI.
>
>This is something that has been discussed before: was the MI
>exclusively male? We only saw male MI, but does that rule out all
>female units, or maybe even mixed units?
There's no solid evidence saying that there were female or mixed MI
units. There certainly were female Naval units. Maybe Heinlein was
just keeping all the pretty girls to himself (i.e. in the Navy) rather
than letting the Army have any?
-Chris Zakes
Texas
I ha' harpit ye up to the throne o' God,
I ha' harpit your midmost soul in three;
I ha' harpit ye down to the Hinges o' Hell,
And -- ye -- would -- make -- a Knight o' me!
Rudyard Kipling, "The Last Rhyme of True Thomas"
Howard C. Berkowitz
<dwri...@alltel.net> wrote:
> lal_truckee <lal_t...@yahoo.com> wrote in news:fE7Kf.34730$F_3.12900
> @newssvr29.news.prodigy.net:
>
> > David Wright Sr. wrote:
> >>
> >> What did the women who made up 40% of the Federal Service people on
> >> Sanctuary do? Were they military?
> >
> > Perhaps we can extrapolate from two organizations Heinlein discussed
> > elsewhere?
> >
> > The WENCHES:
> > "Women's Emergency National Corps, Hospitality & Entertainment Section"
> >
> > or the successor group, the Space Angels:
> > "Auxiliary Nursing Group, Extraterrestrial Legions"
>
> I knew that someone would bring that up ;-)>
>
> Also, remember Helen Walker and the Amazons from _Tunnel In The Sky_, so
> maybe a lot of those women were from the female equivalent of the MI.
>
> David Wright Sr.
Or to combine a couple of titles: "Amazon WENCHES from the Moon."
Wyoming Knott probably could have qualified either way.
Denny Wheeler
wrote:
>As...@tds.net writes:
>
>> On 18 Feb 2006 01:29:27 -0800, "Bill Dennis" <peoria...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
Bill Dennis:
>> >I'm just saying that I recall some discussion in A.F.H. about this
>> >topic and there was some controversy over whether or the ACTUAL BOOK
>> >said there were forms of qualifying service that did not include
>> >military service.
Aspie:
>> There is no controversy whatsoever. It says so multiple times, quite
>> clearly.
>
>There certainly is controversy. And I can't tell from your paragraph
>there which side you think is clearly right, even.
You can't???? Aspie's 2nd sentence: (and referents)
"It' -- "whether or the the ACTUAL BOOK"
"says so" -- "said there were forms of qualifying service that did not
include military service"
"multiple times, quite clearly" should need no clarification.
Examples of the book so saying have been posted in this thread.
-denny-
--
"...our dignity, our free institutions and the peace and
welfare of this and coming generations of Americans will be
secure only as we cling to the watchword of true patriotism:
'Our country--when right to be kept right; when wrong to be put
right.'" - Carl Schurz, in 1899
Denny Wheeler
<h...@gettcomm.com> wrote:
>> *Presumably* if someone is a pacifist of the sort who volunteered to
>> drive ambulances behind the front lines in WW I (as opposed to the
>> sort of pacifist who just doesn't want to get shot at) then they could
>> find a flavor of Federal Service that would work for them.
>>
>A WWII conscientious objector:
<snip>
Clearly a brave man. But not necessarily a pacifist.
lal_truckee
> On Sun, 19 Feb 2006 20:37:04 -0500, "David Wright Sr."
> <dwri...@alltel.net> wrote:
>
>> lal_truckee <lal_t...@yahoo.com> wrote in news:fE7Kf.34730$F_3.12900
>> @newssvr29.news.prodigy.net:
>>
>>> David Wright Sr. wrote:
>>>> What did the women who made up 40% of the Federal Service people on
>>>> Sanctuary do? Were they military?
>>> Perhaps we can extrapolate from two organizations Heinlein discussed
>>> elsewhere?
>>>
>>> The WENCHES:
>>> "Women's Emergency National Corps, Hospitality & Entertainment Section"
>>>
>>> or the successor group, the Space Angels:
>>> "Auxiliary Nursing Group, Extraterrestrial Legions"
>>>
>> I knew that someone would bring that up ;-)
>>
>> However, remember Helen Walker and the Amazons in _Tunnel In The Sky_. Maybe
>> some of those 40% were from the female equivalent of the MI.
>
> This is something that has been discussed before: was the MI
> exclusively male? We only saw male MI, but does that rule out all
> female units, or maybe even mixed units?
There were two training camps when Rico joined up, and for some time
after. Ric says:
[quote] All I can say to that is this: The next time I have to make a
combat drop, I want the men on my flanks to be graduates of Camp Currie
or its Siberian equivalent.[unquote]
Seems pretty clear MI was all male at that time; although it may have
become co-ed after fighting started and more training camps opened
(adding camps was mentioned somewhere in the text I believe) I doubt it.
I suspect women pilots was stretching the boundaries plenty, for 1959.
That as may be, it's funny that he didn't offer some non-sexist
explanation since it's clear the suits would even out any physical
capability differences. Simple explanations along the lines of the
difficulty of rigging the plumbing for women might have sufficed.
David M. Silver
David Dyer-Bennet <dd...@dd-b.net> wrote:
> A lot of that *does* mirror current military jobs, actually. And one
> of the MI training class that washes out physically ends up as a navy
> cook, you'll remember.
>
> There certainly *are* clear statements that nobody is turned down, and
> the things some of them are given to do are completely non-military.
> The key statement on that subject, I think, is "A term of service
> isn't a kiddie camp; it's either real military service, rough and
> dangerous even in peacetime . . . or a most unreasonable facsimile
> thereof." To me that says that, while the non-military jobs do exist,
> for those few really stubborn people who insist on trying to earn a
> franchise but who cannot qualify for any real military job (which
> includes, like our military, all sorts of non-combat roles; consider
> the Army Corps of Engineers), they are carefully designed to be as
> hard *and as dangerous* as the military jobs.
The problem both you and Gifford have with your theory is you keep
insisting both "current and military" jobs are part of the equation.
They aren't. "Military" in the universe of the 70th or so century ("this
hard-hitting story of combat 5,000 years in the future" from flyleaf,
book jacket, first hard cover edition) in which the Starship Troopers
that Heinlein created exists is strictly defined; and it doesn't include
much of the logistical tail, nor swivel chair hussars that we see today.
Those are "beans," which you hire. All you have that is "military" is
the pointy ends of the stick, less almost all of the REMFs, plus the
naval transports and warships. That means: the M.I., which is a combined
combat arms branch (infantry, armor, artillery, cavalry, with its own
'tactical' signal capability), combat engineers, a limited sort of
tactical reconnaissance (the neo-dog units) and the Navy that transports
the M.I. to a drop, and convoys itself.
The "current" swivel chair hussars, all clerks and bottle washers, do
not exist as "military." There is no separate Armor, Cavalry (horse or
otherwise), Field Artillery, Air Defense Artillery, Aviation, Special
Forces or Corps of Engineers branches. All their combat duties are
subsumed into the basic category "Mobile Infantry," and they have their
own tactical Signal capability as noted above. Combat engineers have
their own separate organization, although it is not noted whether they
are part of the navy, e.g., the so-called Construction Battalions,
"SeaBees," or not. The neodogs, the other exception, is an analogue to
the old "Scout Corps," that among other things, tracked down Geronimo
and, to Custer's everlasting grief, found the very large village on the
branch of the Little Big Horn in 1876.
There is, within the M.I., _no_ separate Signal Corps, non-combat
construction component of the Corps of Engineers (or Topographical
Engineer Corps), Military Police Corps, Military Intelligence Corps,
Civil Affairs or Chemical Corps, within the Mobile Infantry--I didn't
say the Naval doesn't have some slots in some of these categories--they
probably do, where they cannot hire beans. I note some of the jobs Rico
applied for testing referred to military intelligence and logistics--but
those were Navy jobs. I also didn't say they didn't have military
police--they do, on Sanctuary as noted, but nothing is said about a
separate Military Police Corps. Duty as an "SP" or "MP" was something
which, in the Navy which Heinlein knew, could fall upon both officers
and enlisted as "in addition to your other duties." It fell so on
members of the Army in the early 1960s that I knew in Europe when so
ordered and when sufficient "Military Police Corps" school-trained
soldiers were unavailable. Every fixed installation levied personnel for
temporary duty as what was called "Unit Police," and they performed the
function of MPs. The only difference in function and uniform were the
letters, "UP," on their brassards and helmets, which they took off when
they went back to their regular units to perform their usual duties.
There is no Adjutant General Corps, Finance Corps, Transportation Corps,
Ordnance Corps, or Quartermaster Corps. All those are beans to be hired,
most likely hired by the Navy.
There is no Judge Advocate General's Corps, Chaplain Corps, Medical
Corps, Dental Corps, Veterinary Corps, Army Medical Specialists, Army
Nurse Corps, or Medical Service Corps. All beans to be hired, or, where
absolutely necessary, "in addition to your other duties," jobs for M.I.,
who drop and fight as mobile infantry.
In functional areas, able-bodied M.I. (except for basic and advanced
training assignments) were not assigned solely to careers in
psychological operations or civil affairs, operational research, or to
personnel program management, intelligence, operations, plans and
training, logistics and supply, maintenance, public affairs, foreign
area or embassy duties, research, development and acquisition, or
contracting and industrial management. At the field level, such duties
as were essential were worn as a "second" or "third" hat, and were "in
addition to your other duties." Everyone dropped. Everyone fought. The
only concession I see in the entire story is the small combat detail
assigned to a general's staff to keep strangers from "bothering" him
while he was actually engaged in the field directing tactical combat of
his brigade or division.
There are separately no clerks, no draftsmen, no sign painters, no cooks
(in the M.I.), no radio operators, no wiremen, no radio mechanics, no
vehicle mechanics, no medical corpsmen, no supply personnel (save only
the non-able bodied one in basic training), no drivers, no vehicle
gunners, no supernumeries (except "third lieutenants"), no separate
staffs, no field surveyors, no forward observers, no weapons crewmen
(save only those who fired the mega-artillery from on high during one
battle), no riggers, no post engineers, no laundry officers, no PX
officers nor separate personnel, no ship's stores, no mess officers, no
NCO or O club personnel, no marksmanship detachments, no S-staff
personnel, and no separate supervision to order and direct any of these
personnel. There's no ASA, no CIC, on CID, and no chaplain's assistants,
no orderlies, batmen or dog robbers of any kind. There are no feather
merchants whatever.
So I really would wish you'd stop talking about "current" military jobs.
You point to facts that are irrelevant, worse, immaterial, to argument
portrayed by Heinlein in Starship Troopers when you do.
--
David M. Silver
http://www.heinleinsociety.org
"The Lieutenant expects your names to shine!"
Robert Anson Heinlein, USNA '29
Lt.(jg), USN, R'td
David M. Silver
David Dyer-Bennet <dd...@dd-b.net> wrote:
> "Bill Dennis" <peoria...@gmail.com> writes:
>
> > Tank Fixer wrote:
> > > In article <1140167302.2...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> > > on 17 Feb 2006 01:08:22 -0800,
> > > Bill Dennis peoria...@gmail.com attempted to say .....
> > >
> > > > How long has it been since you watched Starship Troopers? Perhaps you
> > > > should again.
> > >
> > > Why should I watch that dreck ?
> > >
> > > If I want crappy TV I can watch survivor
> > >
> >
> >
> > Mmmm I didn't say that.
> >
> > But I did reread Starship Troopers tonight. I used a highlighting pen
> > on every instance in which the nature of "Federal Service" is
> > duscussed. No where is there any evidence that people could join
> > specifically to do anything other than be in the military. There were
> > tons of military jobs discussed that mirrored civilian jobs. But it was
> > testing that determined where you were assigned. Again and again, the
> > novel makes it clear that the the right to vote went to military
> > veterans (it's the whole point of the book) even if they were given
> > make work jobs.
> >
> > No. Sorry folks. "Federal Service" meant serving in the military, even
> > if it meant a non combat role.
> >
> > If there is a specific passage that says differently, please tell me
> > where.
>
> Yep, I did that a few decades ago and reached about the same
> conclusion.
>
> Here's my article, mostly quotes with citations:
> <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/misc/strooper-federal-service.html>. As
> you see, I've updated it with the best some opponents have been able
> to point out (though, since it's my article, I do tend to get the last
> word in).
My browser reports it could not open the page
http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/misc/strooper-federal-service.html because the
server stopped responding.
David M. Silver
"Dr. Rufo" <bay...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> djinn wrote:
>
> > willre...@yahoo.com wrote:
> >
> >>David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
> >>
> >>>"bajasteve" <steven...@sbcglobal.net> writes:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>And I think we really need to keep in mind that the "federal service"
> >>>>required in Troopers was not necessarily military service. Most
> >>>>detractors of the book conveniently forget this little tidbit, because
> >>>>it doesn't blend well with their diatribes and rantings.
> >>>
> >>>And also because the boook very explicitly, and over and over again, shows
> >>>that it isn't true.+
> >>
> >>What the book shows is that you can't *choose* non-military service.
> >>However, you can wind up with non-military service if you fail to
> >>qualify for anything military. This would make the franchise
> >>unobtainable for a pacifist because he, she or it would have to risk
> >>being accepted for the infantry rather than get that cushy civilian job
> >>in the Terraforming of Hell or whatever. Whether the non-military slots
> >>were under military-style discipline is not discussed.
> >>
> >>Will in New Haven
> >>
> >
> > I would expect that demonstrating that you're a pacifist would get you
> > stuck in a non-combat type job. There would have been a way to
> > accomodate Quakers or other committed pacifists.
> >
> > Rico requested military type jobs, he could have asked for terraforming
> > or whatever first. He might have got it. Then we'd have had Starship
> > Ditchdiggers. Not as catchy a title.
> >
> "Starship Seebees"? < WEG >
>
> Rufe
Not unless they were trained to chase runaway hives among the stars.
David M. Silver
Chris Zakes <moon...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> There's no solid evidence saying that there were female or mixed MI
> units. There certainly were female Naval units. Maybe Heinlein was
> just keeping all the pretty girls to himself (i.e. in the Navy) rather
> than letting the Army have any?
Very likely. Note, additionally, there are no Women Marines.
Bookman
<fmc...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>lal_truckee <lal_t...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>:Fred J. McCall wrote:
>:> "djinn" <dje...@gmail.com> wrote:
>:>
>:> :Fred J. McCall wrote:
>:> :>
>:> :> PHYSICAL debility might get you a non-military assignment. Pacifism
>:> :> is a choice.
>:> :
>:> :But it was a pacifists right to perform Fed Service. Insisting on
>:> :combat service is the same as denying his right. ST was pretty explicit
>:> :that MI was considered elite service (by the MI). They wouldn't want a
>:> :pacifist. ST made it clear that there were plenty of dirty, dangerous
>:> :jobs that didn't require combat.
>:>
>:> That's right; it's his right to perform service. However, it is *NOT*
>:> his right to be allowed to dictate the form of that service based on
>:> his own opinions. That's sort of the point of it, after all.
>:>
>:> If a pacifist can do that, how about an anarchist? After all,
>:> accommodating the anarchist would be diametrically opposed to the
>:> whole POINT of requiring service for a franchise.
>:
>:You missed the whole point of the testing the Fed did on applicants.
>: From the tests they _know_ what the applicant is appropriate for. They
>:would no more put an anarchist or pacifist in MI than they'd put Juan in
>:K9 Core. It all works out.
>
>So where *would* they put an anarchist? Remember, it can't be
>anything with the primary purpose of 'helping society', since that
>would be against the anarchists' principles....
Why is it an issue? A real anarchist wouldn't sign up at all, would
he? If he's signing up for the franchise, he wouldn't be an
anarchist, or perhaps he's be the sort of "anarchist" who is willing
to temporarily put aside his principals in order to achieve his
purpose, presumably getting the franchise.
If he (she) can sucessfully "don't ask, don't tell" for the term,
is it really relevant?
>
>Just by the way, lots of people who didn't want to fight and thought
>they were pacifists have wound up in combat arms and done just fine.
>The way you find out if they're real pacifists is that you dump them
>into a hot LZ and see if they suddenly decide that fighting is ok when
>it's fight or die.
>
>You'd be surprised how few real pacifists there are.
Not to disagree entirely with your "hot LZ premise", part of the
problem is that "pacifist" has been 'watered down' to the point that
what it means isn't very clear.
The "I would rather die than kill another" is certainly one of them.
Other meanings are also used WRT "pacifist", with varying degrees of
relevance.
Regards,
--
Rusty the bookman
Mac
<willre...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>djinn wrote:
>> Everyone has a chance at Federal Service. Since everyone includes
>> confirmed pacifists, there has to be a way to give them a chance.
>> Otherwise the whole premise is false.
>That is not logical. If pacifism keeps you from carrying out your end
>of the deal, you don't accept it. You haven't been excluded; you have
>made a decision. I don't KNOW that they don't make provisions for
>pacifists but there is no proof that they do and "everyone has a
>chance" is not the same as "we will bend the terms to fit your
>beliefs."
>Will in New Haven
****************************
I'm afraid I will have to disagree.
One may well be a pacifist and still acknowledge responsibility beyond
one's own self.
In that case, one may serve in a medical capacity.
With Starship Troopers I doubt, very much, there was any "Medic" per
se.
However, my impression of the governmental system was a degree of
flexibility.
My (personal) impression is that one could waltz up and ask for the
franchise and, given one's history, "something" would be found.
It might not be infantry; it might not be military... but, if a
pacifist came and asked to serve, there would be some capacity.
As to what it might be, and on what planet or what outpost of hell, I
have no idea.
But, simply because one is a pacifist need not exclude one from terms
and conditions that can present long weeks of boredom and exciting
moments of sheer horror and terror...
---Mac
Mac
Can't any of these characters ever realize that the critter who made
that abomination of a movie had his own problems with the Nazi's of
his youth ---and that he bragged about not even reading the book on
which his based the title of that movie??
And, can't any of these characters ever read the book, slowly and
carefully, and distinguish between the military, the infantry, and
"federal service"???
Or, do they all detest the concept of earning the franchise instead of
having such given only because one is physicall alive...?
---Mac
**********************
On 17 Feb 2006 01:08:22 -0800, "Bill Dennis" <peoria...@gmail.com>
wrote:
>I posted this on my blog, but I thought I'd give a.f.h. a crack at this
>too:
>
>An article on a Web site based in "occupied Iraq" hauls out the <a
>href="http://www.uruknet.info/?p=m20711&l=i&size=1&hd=0">tired old
>argument</a> that Robert Heinlein was a fascist.
>
>**************************
>How long has it been since you watched Starship Troopers? Perhaps you
>surprised at how reality has outpaced it. I don't mean the space travel
>and the giant bugs; I mean the abandonment of democracy and dutiful
>dissent and the remodeling of America into a martial society. The bugs,
>of course, were never bugs anyway. They're the eternal, dehumanized
>other that needs only extermination. (The original title of 2002's
>giant spider movie Eight Legged Freaks was "Arac Attack.")
>
>Paul Verhoeven's film is smart enough to satirize Robert Heinlein's
>rather straight-ahead authoritarianism (for instance, citizenship is a
>privilege of those who sign up for "federal service"), though satire
>seems a hard thing to grok for those who were disgusted by the story of
>"Hitler Youth in love."
>
>Besides expounding principles of governance which could arguably be
>described as fascist, Heinlein was also - again, arguably - a student
>of the occult, and a familiar of the principals of the Babalon Working:
>Jack Parsons, L Ron Hubbard and "the Scarlet Woman," Marjorie Cameron.
>*************
>
>How typical of the left to equate anything military with fascism.
>
>In an example of guilt by association, the writer goes on to link
>Heinlein to the writer of the white supremacist manifesto "The Turner
>Diaries."
>
>I'll do the guy a favor: Next time you want to leap to conclusions, you
>might want to mention Heinlein's short story "Free Men," which is about
>a bunch of red-neck gun nut survivalists who attempt to overthrow the
>legitimate government of the United States.
Mac
wrote:
>When people tried to enlist and weren't soldier material, they found
>jobs for them. The boot wash out who ended up a cook, for example.
>
>That doesn't mean there was a non-military, public-serve oriented
>branch of Federal Service.
>
>There can't be. The whole premise of the book was that military vets
>made for better voters.
************************
I don't think so.
I believe the premise was that those who chose to show, by concrete
evidence, a service beyond the personal or even the tribal, were
considered material for the franchise.
By being willing to serve, to show forth some degree of
responsibility, a person indicated that they might employ the duty of
the franchise appropriately.
---Mac
Bookman
<Beware of Long Rant ahead!>
Someone correct me if I am wrong - Carmen, Johnny, and Carl all got
jobs that were on their 'preference lists', not so?
I think that one may well presume that the "preference list" is pretty
long. Didn't Johnny say something to the effect "all the way at the
bottom he put Mobile Infantry", after exhausting all the Navy jobs he
thought interesting? And wasn't he turned down for the Navy jobs
more for reasons of his being unsuited to them (like the K9 corp
assignment), rather than lack of availability?
I am of the opinion that a fairly high priority was given to getting
the recruit an assignment on that list, perhaps not a high choice, but
on it. Keep in mind that blind in a wheelchair (IIRC) who might be
assigned a silly job because that's about all they could do.
For a "I won't fight" pacifist, it would take a deliberate act, f'rex
choosing a string of jobs that you were not suited for, plus an
unlucky roll of the dice in order to land in a combat arms role.
And even then, one could resign without doing more than losing your
chance at the franchise.
The "I won't willingly support the military in _any_ fashion, even to
the point of driving supply trucks" flavor of 'pacifists' are probably
screwed when it comes to getting the vote, but I don't know that
they are being intellectually honest, either with themselves or with
those around them...
Back to Don's point, after a fashion. The Federation offered you a
chance. They don't guarantee that you can stand the guff, or even
survive the experience, let alone be happy or fulfilled. It is quite
possible that Juan Rico was one of the rare exceptions in that he
was both. It wouldn't be surprising that the majority of FS
enrolees _hated_ their time of service.
I'm really suspecting that those who are quibbling about the terms of
service are _really_ (consciously or not) proceeding from the premise
that "voting is a human right". This notion precludes relevant
discussion of ST, since the government, if not the society of ST
_rejects_ the notion that a person has any sort of inherent voting
rights. Trying to "prove" that there is something "wrong" with ST
by arguing that an individual's beliefs might cause them to be placed
in a situation that they find intolerable is not compatible with the
ST political system, so when doing it, one is dragging in external
political philosophies.
Does it really matter whether the FS infantryman, ditchdigger, or
test subject quits because they hate their job, they think it is too
difficult, too hard, too dangerous, or just politically unsuitable?
Isn't part of the point that one must sacrifice of one's self in order
to win a franchise, rather than to simply do a job that one likes
and is comfortable with?
I submit that Rico and his mates made a mental adjustment (went over
the 'hump', if you like) in orderr to tolerate their jobs - usually so
well that they found themselves _liking_ their jobs, in the main.
And there were still aspects that they didn't like. I submit that
the political philosophers are arguing that they want people to be
able to win a franchise in a way that does _not_ include
_doing_things_that_ they_don't_want_to_do_! The very premise of ST
laughs in the face of that notion.
In short, the complaint that people in the ST universe might have to
do things that they don't like, is ridiculous, because it is based on
the premise that voting is a "right", and the critic is mixing
political systems for the benefit of his argument. He'd be better off
trying to claim that the warm-body democracy is the only "just"
system, and then try to defend his own position that children and
convicted felons, et alia, either deserve or do not deserve the Vote,
whichever.
Or to be even shorter, there is a disconnect because the critics don't
understand what they have read, and probably because it pokes their
knee-jerk buttons and they don't bother to engage their brains on the
issue raised, but prefer to rationalize their prejudices.
Sorry about going on, so. Thinking on "paper", so to speak, and that
takes room. Thanks for bearing with me.
Regards,
--
Rusty the bookman
But i am a not-too-bright redneck, what do I know?
Bookman
>David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
>> "djinn" <dje...@gmail.com> writes:
>>
>>> Everyone has a chance at Federal Service. Since everyone includes
>>> confirmed pacifists, there has to be a way to give them a chance.
>>> Otherwise the whole premise is false.
>>
>> Also confirmed cowards, and confirmed lazy slobs, right? I think they
>> all get a *chance* at it -- but I doubt they get custom-configured
>> jobs to meet their preferences. Any more than pacifists do.
>
>[Quote]But if you want to serve and I can't talk you out of it, then we
>have to take you, because that's your constitutional right.[Unquote]
>
>The text is clear. Perhaps a re-read is in order?
It says they have to let you in. It doesn't say that you are
guranteed to finish your term because you don't like your job, or
it upsets your political philosophies. Any of many other "charachter
flaws" will also get you a summary discharge, from an inability to
take orders, to raping and killing a little girl. Correction, the
latter meant that the MI/FS got rid of the perp by execution, rather
than discharge.
The only mental reservation was that those who were incapable of
understanding the Oath were not accepted. Incompatible political
beliefs don't mean that you get a pass to a free franchise.
Bill Dennis
> In short, the complaint that people in the ST universe might have to
> do things that they don't like, is ridiculous, because it is based on
> the premise that voting is a "right", and the critic is mixing
> political systems for the benefit of his argument. He'd be better off
> trying to claim that the warm-body democracy is the only "just"
> system, and then try to defend his own position that children and
> convicted felons, et alia, either deserve or do not deserve the Vote,
> whichever.
[snip]
> Or to be even shorter, there is a disconnect because the critics don't
> understand what they have read, and probably because it pokes their
> knee-jerk buttons and they don't bother to engage their brains on the
> issue raised, but prefer to rationalize their prejudices.
Damn, you sir!
I had every intention to make this very same point. Then you went and
ruined it by doing the same thing.
I will take this point a bit further, however, by stating that perhaps
one reason so many Heinlein fans seem to read something that isn't
present in the text if that deep down, they hold to that same fondly
held notion that having a warm body alone should give you the right to
vote, and that this is a healthy way to run a constitutional republic.
Deep down to them, perhaps this notion of Heinlein's -- the one he
created in this novel -- seems to be a little fascist to them, so they
want to see soemthing that isn't there?
Bill Dennis
Denny Wheeler
wrote:
>
>Can't any of these characters ever realize that the critter who made
>that abomination of a movie had his own problems with the Nazi's of
>his youth ---and that he bragged about not even reading the book on
>which his based the title of that movie??
>And, can't any of these characters ever read the book, slowly and
>carefully, and distinguish between the military, the infantry, and
>"federal service"???
>Or, do they all detest the concept of earning the franchise instead of
>having such given only because one is physicall alive...?
Well, since they detest the concepts of personal responsibility,
thinking, and freedom, why wouldn't they detest having to earn
anything?
Bookman
>Rico did not request "military jobs", he specifically requested pilot
>training because of his female friend who was going for that job.
The "pilot training" was a "military job". So were "all the other
Space Navy jobs*" that he "placed at the top*" of the list.
"Intelligence*" may or may not be a "military job", but "psychological
warfare, chemical warfare, biological warfare, and combat ecology*"
most definitely are "military jobs", as are "K-9 Corps, and Infantry*"
You can quibble about whether the "logistics corps...and a dozen
others*" are actually "military jobs", of course.
It is notable that he could even then have listed non-combat corps,
but "didn't bother to list the various non-combat auxiliary corps*"
because he considered them to be "a booby prize*".
In short, you are incorrect. Rico did indeed request military jobs.
* Starship Troopers, Berkley paperback, 17th printing, p32.
Fred J. McCall
:Fred J. McCall wrote:
:>
:> So where *would* they put an anarchist? Remember, it can't be
:> anything with the primary purpose of 'helping society', since that
:> would be against the anarchists' principles....
:
:Sounds like you haven't actually read very deeply in Anarchist writings
:or studied related history?
Why does everyone always make the assumption that anyone disagreeing
with their conclusions must be uninformed?
:Be that as it may, we do have the canonical example of "Counting the
:fuzz on a caterpillar by touch" - even satisfies your inaccurate
:proscription against "helping society."
Except how do you get the anarchist to do it?
A real anarchist lacks the very thing that is supposed to be needed to
earn the franchise.
he caterpillar jobs go to folks who PHYSICALLY can't perform but have
the will. CHOICES don't cut it. I would think such would just be
disqualifying.
--
"The odds get even - You blame the game.
The odds get even - The stakes are the same.
You bet your life."
-- "You Bet Your Life", Rush
Fred J. McCall
:David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
:> "djinn" <dje...@gmail.com> writes:
:>
:>> Everyone has a chance at Federal Service. Since everyone includes
:>> confirmed pacifists, there has to be a way to give them a chance.
:>> Otherwise the whole premise is false.
:>
:> Also confirmed cowards, and confirmed lazy slobs, right? I think they
:> all get a *chance* at it -- but I doubt they get custom-configured
:> jobs to meet their preferences. Any more than pacifists do.
:
:[Quote]But if you want to serve and I can't talk you out of it, then we
:have to take you, because that's your constitutional right.[Unquote]
:
:The text is clear. Perhaps a re-read is in order?
Nope. They get their chance. What they DON'T get is special
consideration by job because of their CHOSEN positions.
--
"It's over now, or so they say.
But sometimes it don't work out that way.
And you're never the same when you've been under fire."
-- Huey Lewis and the News "Walking On A Thin Line"
Bookman
wrote:
>
>Seems pretty clear MI was all male at that time; although it may have
>become co-ed after fighting started and more training camps opened
>(adding camps was mentioned somewhere in the text I believe) I doubt it.
>I suspect women pilots was stretching the boundaries plenty, for 1959.
>
>That as may be, it's funny that he didn't offer some non-sexist
>explanation since it's clear the suits would even out any physical
>capability differences. Simple explanations along the lines of the
>difficulty of rigging the plumbing for women might have sufficed.
Not really funny at all, since (IIRC) evidence from "Gurmbles FTG"
indicated that he knew when he wrote it, that ST was a risky book,
politically. He had an axe to grind, and knew it.
Pushing the female combat troop wasn't relevent to the points he was
trying to make, IMO, and wouldn't have done anything to benefit the
story, since it already had women (who were generally better suited to
it than men) going into harm's way as Navy pilots.
RAH does allow for female combat troops several times in other titles.
The fact that he doesn't do so here doesn't detract from him, IMO.
Bookman
wrote:
>Rusty opined:
>
>> In short, the complaint that people in the ST universe might have to
>> do things that they don't like, is ridiculous, because it is based on
>> the premise that voting is a "right", and the critic is mixing
>> political systems for the benefit of his argument. He'd be better off
>> trying to claim that the warm-body democracy is the only "just"
>> system, and then try to defend his own position that children and
>> convicted felons, et alia, either deserve or do not deserve the Vote,
>> whichever.
>
> [snip]
>
>> Or to be even shorter, there is a disconnect because the critics don't
>> understand what they have read, and probably because it pokes their
>> knee-jerk buttons and they don't bother to engage their brains on the
>> issue raised, but prefer to rationalize their prejudices.
>
>Damn, you sir!
Indeed, you damn me with faint praise. <G>
>
>I had every intention to make this very same point. Then you went and
>ruined it by doing the same thing.
(From "Hagar The Horrible"
Hagar: "Great minds think alike."
Lucky Eddie: "And so do ours!"
>
>I will take this point a bit further, however, by stating that perhaps
>one reason so many Heinlein fans seem to read something that isn't
>present in the text if that deep down, they hold to that same fondly
>held notion that having a warm body alone should give you the right to
>vote, and that this is a healthy way to run a constitutional republic.
>Deep down to them, perhaps this notion of Heinlein's -- the one he
>created in this novel -- seems to be a little fascist to them, so they
>want to see soemthing that isn't there?
No, sir, i disagree. IMO, RAH wanted to challenge the "warm body"
democracy concept, and that most fans got it. The problem is that
when non-fen challenge the premise, they trip over the "everyone gets
a chance" premise when they drag in incompatible mind-sets.
The blind paraplegic doesn't get to stay in if he refuses to serve for
political/philosophical reasons, or even if he just gets 'fed up' with
it.
Part of the whole point of the process is sorting out folks with the
wrong attitude, stuff like "they owe me a living", or "I am unwilling
to either risk killing or risk dying for this society". No doubt
there are others.
But the field gets muddied between the physical and the philosophical
on this issue. I doubt that the average fan disagrees with the
premise for the sake of the book ( although perhaps they would IRL (I
might, dunno)). But the critics usually lead off with this sort of
thing, trying to introduce elements that are at odds with the text,
such as (won't support the military) pacifists or anarchists who
"can't join". Well certainly they can join - the problem is that they
may be ordered to do something they don't like, and if they refuse to
do it, it might cost them their vote.
This is only a problem with those who wish to (mis)judge ST in terms
of "warm body democrtacy", and not even now do we actually have that.
Since ST rejects the WBD theory on it's fac, fans should avoid falling
for it. Part of the idea of ST's society was to limit the franchise
to those who were willing to work for the benefit of the society doing
dangerous, often distasteful jobs.
The philosophy argument falls apart, since those with anti-society
mindsets are pretty much filtered out by the process.
David Wright Sr.
8D52A1.213...@individual.net:
(snip)
> "Military" in the universe of the 70th or so century ("this
> hard-hitting story of combat 5,000 years in the future" from flyleaf,
> book jacket, first hard cover edition)
I have to argue with the writer of the flyleaf blurb. I don't believe that
this story was set in a future that far ahead of today. On purely
linguistic terms, it is highly unlikely that any of today's more minor
languages such as Tagalog, Espanol, German, would still exist after that
great a span of time. Modern technology and large populations have sped up
the rate of language change and language merge considerably even today.
Even English is unlikely to remain 'English' after 5,000 years. (Of course,
that is irrelevant in this case as we as required to assume that the
language spoken by the characters of a book written for English speakers of
1959 is understandable as 'English').
Also, it is highly unlikely that things such as a theater named after
MacArthur, or even Harvard University would still be around after that
length of time.
--
The map is not the territory.
A word is not the object that it refers to.
A. Korzybski, _Science & Sanity_ (1933)
Bill Dennis
> > No, sir, i disagree. IMO, RAH wanted to challenge the "warm body"
> democracy concept, and that most fans got it. The problem is that
> when non-fen challenge the premise, they trip over the "everyone gets
> a chance" premise when they drag in incompatible mind-sets.
Rusty: I agree with this in part. MOST of the Heinlein fans got the
premise. BUT, there are far topo many who defend the book and Heinlein
by claimign there's stuffin that isn't there. I got a taste of that
upthread.
Myself, I don't need to make Federal Service out to be some sort of
futuristic Peace Corps in order to think well of Heinlein and "Starship
Troopers." The book says what it says. It challenged my assumptions
about Democracy and citizenship.
Which is exactly what Heinlein intended.
And thanks for the opportunity to express that idea.
Bill