Latest News
Auto Repair
Blinds
Building/Remodeling
Floor Refinishing
Insulation
Landscaping
Landscaping
Lightning Rods
Moving
Overhead Doors
Received wisdom today seems to be that a military draft is a bad thing. Rep. Charles Rangel is regularly abused for continuing to propose reinstating it: His point is that a military draft spreads the burden of fighting wars instead of having it fall almost exclusively on those most economically burdened. And, there seems to be near-overwhelming terror among those young enough to be subject to the draft that somehow military service could actually happen to them.
With this as background, it occurs to me there are other benefits to be derived from having a draft in addition to the one presented by Rep. Rangel. Since one rarely hears of them today, it seems a worthwhile exercise to mention a few of them. Here is my list:
u u u
1. A draft tends to limit the freedom of politicians to deploy the military according to motives that may not be in the nation’s best interest.
2. A draft provides a view of how the other half lives for the products of our finer educational institutions and possibly encourages in this group some sympathy for the lives of "ordinary folks" — note that it is the post-draft generation that is now busily finishing the task of eliminating job security for the working classes in America.
3. A draft provides the professional military with some close-up experience with people who are now outside the military-industrial complex. It requires them to learn how non-career military people think, and it generally encourages a more thoughtful attitude among professional soldiers.
4. A draft produces a subsequent electorate that is aware of military life and its effect on the people who live it.
5. A draft imposes practical career education on some who might have evaded it previously (including the writer of this column).
6. A draft produces a national reserve of citizen soldiers who can return to a military role in the event of a national catastrophe — i.e. full-scale war.
7. A draft gets 100 percent of the young people turning 18 (or whatever age it kicks in) physically examined by medical people capable of identifying many problems. This has positive public health ramifications that extend well beyond identifying those who are fit to serve.
8. A draft is a sobering prospect for many young people, encouraging more diligent application to work or study in an effort to avoid serving, or, if called to service, to qualify one for more desirable assignments.
9. A draft makes a military career more acceptable as an alternative to people who would not otherwise elect it — yes, there are people who, once drafted, actually decide that they
like military life. Thereby it makes the career military less homogenous in terms of cultural and class background.
u u u
These are generalizations that have occurred over the years to the writer, based on his own experience of having had a fancy education, having opposed the draft, having been drafted (1964) and served, having received a direct commission while in the Army, and having returned to civilian life (1967) knowing a whole lot more than I could possibly have learned without the military experience.
There are many ways that a military draft might be made more palatable, such as compulsory national service in a non-military capacity. However, I share with Rep. Rangel the notion that the draft could be a net benefit to our nation.
Geoff Brown is retired from Citigroup, and lives in Taconic, where he has a small business publishing history.
Related Stories
Get Local News Delivered To Your Inbox
Subscribe to receive stories reported for, by, and about our neighbors, on the issues affecting you.
By signing up you agree to our
privacy policy
.
Telecom Reg’s Best Kept On the Books
When Connecticut land-use commissions update their regulations, it seems like a no-brainer to jettison old telecommunications regulations adopted decades ago during a short-lived period when municipalities had authority to regulate second generation (2G) transmissions prior to the Connecticut Siting Council (CSC) being ordered by a state court in 2000 to regulate all cell tower infrastructure as “functionally equivalent” services.
It is far better to update those regs instead, especially for macro-towers given new technologies like small cells. Even though only ‘advisory’ to the CSC, the preferences of towns by law must be taken into consideration in CSC decision making. Detailed telecom regs – not just a general wish list -- are evidence that a town has put considerable thought into where they prefer such infrastructure be sited without prohibiting service that many – though not all – citizens want and that first responders rely on for public safety.
Such regs come in handy when egregious tower sites are proposed in sensitive areas, typically on private land. The regs are a town’s first line of defense, especially when cross referenced to plans of conservation and development, P&Z regulations, and wetlands setbacks. They identify how/where the town plans to intersect with the CSC process. They are also a roadmap for service providers regarding preferred sites and sometimes less neighborhood contention. In fact, to have no telecom regs can weaken a town’s rights to protect environmental, scenic, and historic assets, and serve up whole neighborhoods to unnecessary overlapping coverage and corporate overreach. Such regs are unique to every town and should not follow anyone else’s boiler plate, especially industry’s.
Connecticut is the only state that has a centralized siting entity for cell towers. The good news is that applicants must prove need for new tower sites in an evidentiary proceeding and any decisions have the weight of the state behind them. The bad news is that the CSC used to be far less industry-friendly and rote in their reviews, which now resemble a check list. There is an operative assumption at CSC that if an applicant wants a tower, they must need it, otherwise why spend significant money to run the approval gauntlet? This reflects a subtle shift over the years at CSC from sincere willingness to protect the environment toward minimal tweaking of bad applications with minor changes. The bottom line is that towns really cannot rely on the CSC to do all the work for them.
What CSC issues telecom providers is a “certificate of environmental compatibility” after an evidentiary proceeding (not unlike a court case) with intervenors, parties, expert witnesses, and the service provider’s technical pro’s sworn in and subject to cross examination. Service providers get to do the same with any opposition from intervenor/party participants – like towns and citizens -- and their experts. It’s an impressive process whose ultimate goal is the fine balancing between allowing adequate/reliable public services and protecting state ecology with minimal damage to scenic, historic, and recreational values. They unfortunately often fall short of their mandate – like approving cell towers with diesel generators over town aquifers -- evidenced by CSC only rejecting about five cell towers in the past 15-20 years.
The CSC was founded in 1972 and clarified its mission in the 1980’s to prevent the state from being carved up willy-nilly by gas pipelines, high tension corridors, and broadcast towers. With the sudden proliferation of cell towers beginning in late 1990’s, it became the most sued agency in Connecticut by both an arrogant upstart industry if applications were denied and by towns/citizens when bad sites were forced on them. CSC gradually formed a defensive posture that drives their decisions toward industry with deeper pockets and attorneys on retainer.
For citizens, nothing can wreck one’s day like the CSC. It behooves towns to protect what little toolkit they have, and understand the legal parameters of the CSC’s playing field. The CSC is not a “normal” government agency where municipal/citizen redress is based on logic and local support. Their process is largely immune to everything but specific kinds of evidence – like town regs with setbacks/fall zones, radio frequency transmission signal strengths, sensitive areas identified, and detailed wildlife inventory, among others.
There is a current cell tower fight involving two intervening towns -- Washington and Warren; both with good cell tower regs – over a tower site within 1200’ of a Montessori School, near Steep Rock’s nature preserves with comprehensive geology/wildlife databases that include endangered, threatened and special concern flora and fauna, on established federal/state migratory bird flyways, within throwing distance to a historic site capable of being listed on the Underground Railroad, and with an access road on a blind curve entering a state highway that will permanently damage wetlands, vernal pools, and core forests. There are well credentialed environmental experts, including Dr. Michael Klemens, former chair of Salisbury’s P&Z, as well as the former director of migratory bird management at the US Fish and Wildlife Service, and an RF engineer testifying to alternative approaches, plus three attorneys representing intervenors. It is the most professional challenge I have seen at CSC since Falls Village successfully mounted one that protected Robbins Swamps several years ago.
The hearing is ongoing, with uncertain results. To see what it takes today to stop an inappropriate tower siting, see Docket #543 under “Pending Matters” at https://portal.ct.gov/csc before removing local cell tower regs – the lowest hanging fruit that any town can possess in case it’s needed.
B, Blake Levitt is the Communications Director at The Berkshire-Litchfield Environmental Council. She writes about how technology affects biology.