On 16/06/2022 09.37, Don wrote:

>>>> David Johnston wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> My research indicates that Rand was a fervent advocate of smoking before
>>>>> her cancer diagnosis, and just stopped talking about afterward, since
>>>>> obviously Ayn Rand would never admit that she might have been wrong
>>>>> about something.

> Rand's not the only author to inject her own cigarette habit into her
> characters. Those in the know say whenever Zelazny reached for a
> cigarette in real life he had his characters do the same in his stories.

I happen to be in the middle of Ken MacLeod's _The Sky Road_ and am
surprised every time one of his characters has a smoke. (I shouldn't be,
as I just read _The Cassini Division_ last summer.)

When Kimball Kinnison or Salvor Hardin has one, it doesn't bounce me
out of the story. But, this is (c) 1999. Would anybody here happen to
know if MacLeod is himself a heavy smoker? Or was?

<http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/pe.cgi?2462>

--
Michael F. Stemper
Galatians 3:28

On Friday, June 10, 2022 at 10:58:18 PM UTC-4, J. Clarke wrote:
> On Wed, 8 Jun 2022 00:51:14 -0700 (PDT), Kevrob <kev...@my-deja.com>
> wrote:
>
[snip]

> >Did Ms Hartford share the name of the city, or the underwriter?
> Emelia Hartford is a girl with a Ferrari who is a great deal more
> interesting that the insurance CEO's daughter. Google her.

I see.

Vrooom!

[snip]

--
Kevin R
a.a #2310

On Thursday, June 16, 2022 at 8:37:24 AM UTC-6, Don wrote:

> Nicotine increases neural activity. It makes its users smarter - at
> the expense of their health. It's easy to deny nicotine's negative
> health effects given how it boosts your intelligence.

This is news to me. My understanding was that nicotine did have
a positive effect on the mind, but by improving one's ability to
concentrate. This was why many scizophrenics are heavy smokers,
as an inability to concentrate is one of the effects of the condition.

It was from a _Scientific American_ article that mentioned this that I
learned that John W. Campbell was not making things up when he
mentioned that beneficial effect of tobacco in an editorial.

John Savard

On Wednesday, June 15, 2022 at 12:37:38 PM UTC-4, Paul S Person wrote:
> On Wed, 15 Jun 2022 15:01:48 +1200, Titus G <no...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
> >On 13/06/22 19:18, David Johnston wrote:
> >
> >> My research indicates that Rand was a fervent advocate of smoking before
> >> her cancer diagnosis, and just stopped talking about afterward, since
> >> obviously Ayn Rand would never admit that she might have been wrong
> >> about something.
> >>
> >
> >I have recently finished a reread of The Fountainhead which I did not
> >really understand when a teenager. I now understand her argument and am
> >not impressed. I found her characters and plot unrealistic and contrived
> >but her ridiculous excessive use of hyperbole kept me reading. There
> >were no gray areas; everything in this fairy tale was as black and white
> >as US propaganda with no possibility of the author being wrong about
> >anything.
> Sounds about right.
>
> As one reviewer (I think of the film noted), "Architecture critics do
> not generally get to decide which buildings will be built".
>
Not a plot point in "The Fountainhead," as I recall, but in Real Life, critics,
or at least groups of People With Opinions About Architecture have
been preventing buildings from being built ever since Historic Preservation
has been allowed to trump the Fifth Amendment's takings clause.

I'm old enough to remember the fuss over PennStation in New York.

https://blog.mcny.org/2012/05/08/penn-station-and-the-rise-of-historic-preservation/
> I gave up on her /philosophy/ a long time ago. I am still deciding
> when (or whether) to reread her /novels/.
> --

I'm a Libertarian, but not a "student of Objectivism." I was already a
pro-liberty atheist before I read Rand.

--
Kevin R

In message <t8ftbs$i0t$1@dont-email.me>
"Michael F. Stemper" <michael.stemper@gmail.com> wrote:

> But, this is (c) 1999. Would anybody here happen to
> know if MacLeod is himself a heavy smoker? Or was?
>
> <http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/pe.cgi?2462>

Was. See http://kenmacleod.blogspot.com/2020/10/vaping-and-viruses.html
for the history.

Anthony

On Friday, 17 June 2022 at 09:51:16 UTC+1, Anthony Frost wrote:
> In message <t8ftbs$i0t$1...@dont-email.me>
> "Michael F. Stemper" <michael...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > But, this is (c) 1999. Would anybody here happen to
> > know if MacLeod is himself a heavy smoker? Or was?
> >
> > <http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/pe.cgi?2462>
> Was. See http://kenmacleod.blogspot.com/2020/10/vaping-and-viruses.html
> for the history.

Is there some perverse reason that all of the reader comments
are really promoting their own, generally unrelated web sites?

In message <27d99b6e-ecd2-4787-a898-5371eac1ce48n@googlegroups.com>
Robert Carnegie <rja.carnegie@excite.com> wrote:

> On Friday, 17 June 2022 at 09:51:16 UTC+1, Anthony Frost wrote:
> > In message <t8ftbs$i0t$1...@dont-email.me>
> > "Michael F. Stemper" <michael...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > But, this is (c) 1999. Would anybody here happen to
> > > know if MacLeod is himself a heavy smoker? Or was?
> > >
> > > <http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/pe.cgi?2462>
> > Was. See http://kenmacleod.blogspot.com/2020/10/vaping-and-viruses.html
> > for the history.
>
> Is there some perverse reason that all of the reader comments
> are really promoting their own, generally unrelated web sites?

It's just spam, tends to happen anywhere that allows open comments. Ken
isn't an active blogger and tends to let the comments accumulate, others
either zap spam comments as they come in or close commenting after a
while.

Anthony

On 17/06/2022 03.56, Robert Carnegie wrote:
> On Friday, 17 June 2022 at 09:51:16 UTC+1, Anthony Frost wrote:
>> In message <t8ftbs$i0t$1...@dont-email.me>
>> "Michael F. Stemper" <michael...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> But, this is (c) 1999. Would anybody here happen to
>>> know if MacLeod is himself a heavy smoker? Or was?
>>>
>>> <http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/pe.cgi?2462>
>> Was. See http://kenmacleod.blogspot.com/2020/10/vaping-and-viruses.html
>> for the history.

That was interesting. Thanks for the link.

> Is there some perverse reason that all of the reader comments
> are really promoting their own, generally unrelated web sites?

I found them quite amusing. Especially the one that said "Very
efficiently written information."

--
Michael F. Stemper
Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend.
Inside of a dog, it's too dark to read.

On Thursday, June 16, 2022 at 8:17:21 PM UTC-6, Kevrob wrote:

> I'm a Libertarian, but not a "student of Objectivism." I was already a
> pro-liberty atheist before I read Rand.

I thought that being a Libertarian meant more than just being for
freedom. Specifically, the distinguishing tenet of that political
persuasion is that taxation is theft; it's like 11 thugs democratically
voting to help themselves tot he contents of a twelfth person's
wallet.

While the argument sounds plausible, in the real world, if we didn't
join together under governments with the power to tax and conscript,
we would have no freedom at all, because there are countries under
tyranny waiting to conquer us.

John Savard

Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> schrieb:

> It was from a _Scientific American_ article that mentioned this that I
> learned that John W. Campbell was not making things up when he
> mentioned that beneficial effect of tobacco in an editorial.

Why would anybody put tobacco into an editorial? Print it with
tobacco-based ink, perhaps?

On Fri, 17 Jun 2022 07:52:39 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
<jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:

>On Thursday, June 16, 2022 at 8:17:21 PM UTC-6, Kevrob wrote:
>
>> I'm a Libertarian, but not a "student of Objectivism." I was already a
>> pro-liberty atheist before I read Rand.
>
>I thought that being a Libertarian meant more than just being for
>freedom. Specifically, the distinguishing tenet of that political
>persuasion is that taxation is theft; it's like 11 thugs democratically
>voting to help themselves tot he contents of a twelfth person's
>wallet.
>
>While the argument sounds plausible, in the real world, if we didn't
>join together under governments with the power to tax and conscript,
>we would have no freedom at all, because there are countries under
>tyranny waiting to conquer us.

Countries, schmountries -- there's the next town over.
--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."

On Thu, 16 Jun 2022 19:17:16 -0700 (PDT), Kevrob <kevrob@my-deja.com>
wrote:

>On Wednesday, June 15, 2022 at 12:37:38 PM UTC-4, Paul S Person wrote:
>> On Wed, 15 Jun 2022 15:01:48 +1200, Titus G <no...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>
>> >On 13/06/22 19:18, David Johnston wrote:
>> >
>> >> My research indicates that Rand was a fervent advocate of smoking before
>> >> her cancer diagnosis, and just stopped talking about afterward, since
>> >> obviously Ayn Rand would never admit that she might have been wrong
>> >> about something.
>> >>
>> >
>> >I have recently finished a reread of The Fountainhead which I did not
>> >really understand when a teenager. I now understand her argument and am
>> >not impressed. I found her characters and plot unrealistic and contrived
>> >but her ridiculous excessive use of hyperbole kept me reading. There
>> >were no gray areas; everything in this fairy tale was as black and white
>> >as US propaganda with no possibility of the author being wrong about
>> >anything.
>> Sounds about right.
>>
>> As one reviewer (I think of the film noted), "Architecture critics do
>> not generally get to decide which buildings will be built".
>>
>
>Not a plot point in "The Fountainhead," as I recall, but in Real Life, critics,
>or at least groups of People With Opinions About Architecture have
>been preventing buildings from being built ever since Historic Preservation
>has been allowed to trump the Fifth Amendment's takings clause.

No, historic preservation was not involved in /The Fountainhead/.

And, while some architecture critics may be supporters of historic
preservation (as may, say, movie critics or art critics or food
critics be, but they are not the problem in /The Fountainhead/), it is
(so far as I can tell) often a group of people trying to preserve a
bit of their local history from the ravages of the Developer.

Keep in mind that critics are, by nature, Second-Handers, and so know
only how to take and destroy (in Ayn Rand's universe, anyway).

>I'm old enough to remember the fuss over PennStation in New York.
>
>https://blog.mcny.org/2012/05/08/penn-station-and-the-rise-of-historic-preservation/
>
>> I gave up on her /philosophy/ a long time ago. I am still deciding
>> when (or whether) to reread her /novels/.
>
>I'm a Libertarian, but not a "student of Objectivism." I was already a
>pro-liberty atheist before I read Rand.
--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."

On Friday, June 17, 2022 at 10:52:44 AM UTC-4, Quadibloc wrote:
> On Thursday, June 16, 2022 at 8:17:21 PM UTC-6, Kevrob wrote:
>
> > I'm a Libertarian, but not a "student of Objectivism." I was already a
> > pro-liberty atheist before I read Rand.
> I thought that being a Libertarian meant more than just being for
> freedom. Specifically, the distinguishing tenet of that political
> persuasion is that taxation is theft; it's like 11 thugs democratically
> voting to help themselves tot he contents of a twelfth person's
> wallet.
>

"Taxation is theft" is an idealized view. In my first Econ 001 class,
when the Austrian department chair who had to take over teaching
it when the adjunct hired to do that flaked at the last minute, I volunteered
it as an example of a "coerced economic transaction." That was deemed
a valid answer. Those of us who are "minarchists" rather than anarchists
prefer funding of government activities that tends towards the voluntary
end of a coerced/uncoerced spectrum, but don't entirely eschew taxes.
If they are proportional to pay for constitutional functions of government,
which in our view are few and limited, they are proxies for prices set by
markets. Example: the portion of property taxes devoted to a monopoly
police force, as opposed to those levied for a "service" unrelated to
the maintenance of property, such as running local publik skools.

> While the argument sounds plausible, in the real world, if we didn't
> join together under governments with the power to tax and conscript,
> we would have no freedom at all, because there are countries under
> tyranny waiting to conquer us.
>

I'm sorry, but conscription is slavery. The US has done without open
conscription since the mid-1970s. I will allow as how there was a
"back door draft" by extending enlistment periods.

https://veteran.com/stop-loss-order/

--
Kevin R

On Friday, 17 June 2022 at 12:51:17 UTC+1, Anthony Frost wrote:
> In message <27d99b6e-ecd2-4787...@googlegroups.com>
> Robert Carnegie <rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote:
>
> > On Friday, 17 June 2022 at 09:51:16 UTC+1, Anthony Frost wrote:
> > > In message <t8ftbs$i0t$1...@dont-email.me>
> > > "Michael F. Stemper" <michael...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > But, this is (c) 1999. Would anybody here happen to
> > > > know if MacLeod is himself a heavy smoker? Or was?
> > > >
> > > > <http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/pe.cgi?2462>
> > > Was. See http://kenmacleod.blogspot.com/2020/10/vaping-and-viruses.html
> > > for the history.
> >
> > Is there some perverse reason that all of the reader comments
> > are really promoting their own, generally unrelated web sites?
> It's just spam, tends to happen anywhere that allows open comments. Ken
> isn't an active blogger and tends to let the comments accumulate, others
> either zap spam comments as they come in or close commenting after a
> while.

But it's those being the /only/ comments... and, starting
from six months after the post date. Oh, well.
"No man but a blockhead ever wrote, except for money."

On 6/17/2022 11:08 AM, Kevrob wrote:
> I'm sorry, but conscription is slavery. The US has done without open
> conscription since the mid-1970s. I will allow as how there was a
> "back door draft" by extending enlistment periods.
>
> https://veteran.com/stop-loss-order/

It does not extend the enlistment period, stop loss extends the active
duty part of an enlistment. When an individual signs an enlistment
contract it's for eight years, four of active duty, four of inactive
duty. Stop loss increases the active part and reduces the inactive part.
An individual who has gone inactive can be called up during the inactive
part. It does not go beyond the end of service date.

I went in during late 70s and it was the same, except the contract was
six years.

On Fri, 17 Jun 2022 07:52:39 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
<jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:

>On Thursday, June 16, 2022 at 8:17:21 PM UTC-6, Kevrob wrote:
>
>> I'm a Libertarian, but not a "student of Objectivism." I was already a
>> pro-liberty atheist before I read Rand.
>
>I thought that being a Libertarian meant more than just being for
>freedom. Specifically, the distinguishing tenet of that political
>persuasion is that taxation is theft; it's like 11 thugs democratically
>voting to help themselves tot he contents of a twelfth person's
>wallet.
>
>While the argument sounds plausible, in the real world, if we didn't
>join together under governments with the power to tax and conscript,
>we would have no freedom at all, because there are countries under
>tyranny waiting to conquer us.

Taxation is like data. The taxes to be collected will expand to
consume the income available. This is the problem, and nobody has
ever come up with an effective method of controlling it.

On Fri, 17 Jun 2022 13:39:22 -0500, "Jay E. Morris"
<morrisj@epsilon3.comcon> wrote:

>On 6/17/2022 11:08 AM, Kevrob wrote:
>> I'm sorry, but conscription is slavery. The US has done without open
>> conscription since the mid-1970s. I will allow as how there was a
>> "back door draft" by extending enlistment periods.
>>
>> https://veteran.com/stop-loss-order/
>
>It does not extend the enlistment period, stop loss extends the active
>duty part of an enlistment. When an individual signs an enlistment
>contract it's for eight years, four of active duty, four of inactive
>duty. Stop loss increases the active part and reduces the inactive part.
>An individual who has gone inactive can be called up during the inactive
>part. It does not go beyond the end of service date.
>
>I went in during late 70s and it was the same, except the contract was
>six years.

For common troops sure - my late wife's uncle was an air force officer
(LtC) whose retirement included an emergency recall clause. While he
was a guest at dinner (during the 1973 Arab-Israeli war) a junior
officer came to their door, asked if there was a room where he could
talk privately with 'the colonel' so her father sent him to the living
room (which had a glass door) and fetched his brother. 20 years later
her uncle told her what she had seen was him receiving 24 hour call up
notice (this is when the US went to Defcon 3 - he was retired Royal
Canadian Airforce and all other NATO countries did pre-mobilization at
the same time) He told her his orders - if he had been called up -
would have had him off to Norway to command a squadron. And that when
he had gotten home from dinner he had packed his 'ready bag'.

On 6/17/2022 8:58 PM, The Horny Goat wrote:
> On Fri, 17 Jun 2022 13:39:22 -0500, "Jay E. Morris"
> <morrisj@epsilon3.comcon> wrote:
>
>> On 6/17/2022 11:08 AM, Kevrob wrote:
>>> I'm sorry, but conscription is slavery. The US has done without open
>>> conscription since the mid-1970s. I will allow as how there was a
>>> "back door draft" by extending enlistment periods.
>>>
>>> https://veteran.com/stop-loss-order/
>>
>> It does not extend the enlistment period, stop loss extends the active
>> duty part of an enlistment. When an individual signs an enlistment
>> contract it's for eight years, four of active duty, four of inactive
>> duty. Stop loss increases the active part and reduces the inactive part.
>> An individual who has gone inactive can be called up during the inactive
>> part. It does not go beyond the end of service date.
>>
>> I went in during late 70s and it was the same, except the contract was
>> six years.
>
> For common troops sure - my late wife's uncle was an air force officer
> (LtC) whose retirement included an emergency recall clause. While he
> was a guest at dinner (during the 1973 Arab-Israeli war) a junior
> officer came to their door, asked if there was a room where he could
> talk privately with 'the colonel' so her father sent him to the living
> room (which had a glass door) and fetched his brother. 20 years later
> her uncle told her what she had seen was him receiving 24 hour call up
> notice (this is when the US went to Defcon 3 - he was retired Royal
> Canadian Airforce and all other NATO countries did pre-mobilization at
> the same time) He told her his orders - if he had been called up -
> would have had him off to Norway to command a squadron. And that when
> he had gotten home from dinner he had packed his 'ready bag'.

Yes, both officer and enlisted retirees can be recalled but this is
different from the stop loss program.

And I think I may have implied I had a contract whereas I was
commissioned. Still, at the time, a six year commitment but the
difference is an officer doesn't re-up, but remains until he resigns or
retires.

On Fri, 17 Jun 2022 18:58:04 -0700, The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca>
wrote:

>On Fri, 17 Jun 2022 13:39:22 -0500, "Jay E. Morris"
><morrisj@epsilon3.comcon> wrote:
>
>>On 6/17/2022 11:08 AM, Kevrob wrote:
>>> I'm sorry, but conscription is slavery. The US has done without open
>>> conscription since the mid-1970s. I will allow as how there was a
>>> "back door draft" by extending enlistment periods.
>>>
>>> https://veteran.com/stop-loss-order/
>>
>>It does not extend the enlistment period, stop loss extends the active
>>duty part of an enlistment. When an individual signs an enlistment
>>contract it's for eight years, four of active duty, four of inactive
>>duty. Stop loss increases the active part and reduces the inactive part.
>>An individual who has gone inactive can be called up during the inactive
>>part. It does not go beyond the end of service date.
>>
>>I went in during late 70s and it was the same, except the contract was
>>six years.
>
>For common troops sure - my late wife's uncle was an air force officer
>(LtC) whose retirement included an emergency recall clause. While he
>was a guest at dinner (during the 1973 Arab-Israeli war) a junior
>officer came to their door, asked if there was a room where he could
>talk privately with 'the colonel' so her father sent him to the living
>room (which had a glass door) and fetched his brother. 20 years later
>her uncle told her what she had seen was him receiving 24 hour call up
>notice (this is when the US went to Defcon 3 - he was retired Royal
>Canadian Airforce and all other NATO countries did pre-mobilization at
>the same time) He told her his orders - if he had been called up -
>would have had him off to Norway to command a squadron. And that when
>he had gotten home from dinner he had packed his 'ready bag'.

Retirees (as noted in another response) are subject to recall.

That is why those who serve 30 years retire /at full pay/: they may be
retired, but they are still in the military.
--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."

On Friday, June 17, 2022 at 10:08:34 AM UTC-6, Kevrob wrote:

> I'm sorry, but conscription is slavery. The US has done without open
> conscription since the mid-1970s.

I'm opposed to the practice of many countries of drafting all young men
for a term of service, usually of two years, after they graduate from high
school, during peacetime.

The ability to conscript, though, *when there's a war on*, as had been
the case a few times prior to the mid-1970s is a power of government
that I do not believe can safely be dispensed with. Not in a world where
war remains a possibility.

John Savard

On Fri, 17 Jun 2022 21:03:19 -0400, J. Clarke
<jclarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Fri, 17 Jun 2022 07:52:39 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
><jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>
>>While the argument sounds plausible, in the real world, if we didn't
>>join together under governments with the power to tax and conscript,
>>we would have no freedom at all, because there are countries under
>>tyranny waiting to conquer us.
>
>Taxation is like data. The taxes to be collected will expand to
>consume the income available. This is the problem, and nobody has
>ever come up with an effective method of controlling it.

I dunno - certain political parties are better at spending it than
others and no question a basic law of economics are that there are
ALWAYS more needs (legitimate ones not the goofy ones) than resources
are available.

So the so called progressive do tend to believe they know better to
decide how to spend the average taxpayer than he or she does
themselves.

On Sat, 18 Jun 2022 10:40:30 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
<jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:

>On Friday, June 17, 2022 at 10:08:34 AM UTC-6, Kevrob wrote:
>
>> I'm sorry, but conscription is slavery. The US has done without open
>> conscription since the mid-1970s.
>
>I'm opposed to the practice of many countries of drafting all young men
>for a term of service, usually of two years, after they graduate from high
>school, during peacetime.

Actually, I would favor drafting all [1] young men /and women/ after
they graduate from High School or turn 18, whichever comes later --
but only for a summer of basic training.

At the end of which, some may choose to stay active, some may be
required to do so, some may choose to be in the various reserve
elements, some may be required to do so, but most will only be
bothered by this if the balloon goes up.

Note that this would apply to all the various services, not just the
Army. No telling what will be needed in the Undiscovered Country.

It's easy to ignore a war when only volunteers are in the military.
Hated as the draft was, it at least ensured that the military was
something a lot of people had experience with and that even more had
an interest in the war.

>The ability to conscript, though, *when there's a war on*, as had been
>the case a few times prior to the mid-1970s is a power of government
>that I do not believe can safely be dispensed with. Not in a world where
>war remains a possibility.

[1] That meet current military standards -- no relaxation of weight
requirements with smart-ass remarks about "they'll lose it in Basic".
No college deferments. Limits on how medical deferments are handled --
no bone spurs that mysteriously vanish when the person is too old
accepted without testing.
--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."

On Sun, 19 Jun 2022 09:14:22 -0700, Paul S Person
<psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:

>Actually, I would favor drafting all [1] young men /and women/ after
>they graduate from High School or turn 18, whichever comes later --
>but only for a summer of basic training.
>

I probably would have objected since I made $7000 that summer (made
more on overtime than straight time) - and that was the 1970s....

Didn't object to military service particularly (though my choice of
college was somewhat affected by Vietnam as while I was a Canadian and
had a scholarship offer from a US school, I also had a very low number
in the draft lottery that year and my father was an American....thus
making my Canadian alma mater more attractive...)

On Sat, 18 Jun 2022 08:15:50 -0700, Paul S Person
<psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:

>On Fri, 17 Jun 2022 18:58:04 -0700, The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca>
>wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 17 Jun 2022 13:39:22 -0500, "Jay E. Morris"
>><morrisj@epsilon3.comcon> wrote:
>>
>>>On 6/17/2022 11:08 AM, Kevrob wrote:
>>>> I'm sorry, but conscription is slavery. The US has done without open
>>>> conscription since the mid-1970s. I will allow as how there was a
>>>> "back door draft" by extending enlistment periods.
>>>>
>>>> https://veteran.com/stop-loss-order/
>>>
>>>It does not extend the enlistment period, stop loss extends the active
>>>duty part of an enlistment. When an individual signs an enlistment
>>>contract it's for eight years, four of active duty, four of inactive
>>>duty. Stop loss increases the active part and reduces the inactive part.
>>>An individual who has gone inactive can be called up during the inactive
>>>part. It does not go beyond the end of service date.
>>>
>>>I went in during late 70s and it was the same, except the contract was
>>>six years.
>>
>>For common troops sure - my late wife's uncle was an air force officer
>>(LtC) whose retirement included an emergency recall clause. While he
>>was a guest at dinner (during the 1973 Arab-Israeli war) a junior
>>officer came to their door, asked if there was a room where he could
>>talk privately with 'the colonel' so her father sent him to the living
>>room (which had a glass door) and fetched his brother. 20 years later
>>her uncle told her what she had seen was him receiving 24 hour call up
>>notice (this is when the US went to Defcon 3 - he was retired Royal
>>Canadian Airforce and all other NATO countries did pre-mobilization at
>>the same time) He told her his orders - if he had been called up -
>>would have had him off to Norway to command a squadron. And that when
>>he had gotten home from dinner he had packed his 'ready bag'.
>
>Retirees (as noted in another response) are subject to recall.
>
>That is why those who serve 30 years retire /at full pay/: they may be
>retired, but they are still in the military.

Maybe in your universe they do, but they do not in the United States.

On Sat, 18 Jun 2022 10:40:30 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
<jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:

>On Friday, June 17, 2022 at 10:08:34 AM UTC-6, Kevrob wrote:
>
>> I'm sorry, but conscription is slavery. The US has done without open
>> conscription since the mid-1970s.
>
>I'm opposed to the practice of many countries of drafting all young men
>for a term of service, usually of two years, after they graduate from high
>school, during peacetime.
>
>The ability to conscript, though, *when there's a war on*, as had been
>the case a few times prior to the mid-1970s is a power of government
>that I do not believe can safely be dispensed with. Not in a world where
>war remains a possibility.

So you're saying that there is going to be a war in the future in
which someone attacks the United States and civilization continues to
exist long enough to train up draftees? Dream on.
>
>John Savard