[OrigamiTulip]

http://www.ucfnews.com/news/2004/06/...s-683963.shtml

During the past week, the Future has received numerous e-mails and letters concerning the supposed 2005 draft legislation currently in the U.S. Senate and U.S. House of Representatives and the lack of coverage thereof.

The legislation, called the Universal National Service Act of 2003, has many UCF students worried that they will soon have to contribute two years of work to "national service" - mostly military duty - which will be required of every man between the ages of 18 and 26.

School would not be a deterrent to forcing each young adult to becoming an army of one in service of the United States. College-bound teenagers and twenty-somethings would still have to contribute the two years of service, though civil service, like working at the post office, would be an option.

Liberals are blaming the Bush administration; many forwarded a popular e-mail claiming: "The administration is quietly trying to get these bills passed now, while the public's attention is on the election."

Too bad these seemingly intelligent, concerned young adults who are fired up enough to send letters to editors of local newspapers are too busy to look up the actual legislation itself. Instead, the wannabe activists are doing no research on the subject, which is a pretty easy one to find information on. A quick click on any popular online search engine will turn up some easy-to-find interesting information.

For instance, the current administration is not trying to push the legislation through. Democrats sponsor both bills. Not one Republican has signed on to even co-sponsor a bill. Additionally, Bush's secretary of defense, Donald Rumsfeld, has expressly said that there is no need for a draft.

Secondly, no one is trying to force through the legislation. There hasn't been any official action on either bill for well over a year. The Senate bill, S. 89, has been stuck in the Senate Committee on Armed Services since Jan. 7, 2003. Similarly the House bill, H.R. 163, has been waiting for an executive comment from the Department of Defense since Feb. 3, 2003.

Going back to the idea of Democrats sponsoring these two bills, immediately a red flag should go up. Yes, there are a small number of Democrats who are for the war in Iraq, but the majority of pro-war advocates are Republicans. Considering Republicans and Democrats frequently co-sponsor bills together, it's odd that a Republican wouldn't extend an olive branch and venture to co-sponsor either of the bills.

The Republicans, obviously, realize something the recent uprising of grassroots campaigners do not: the Democrats are making an anti-war statement.

The congressmen sponsoring the bill are hoping that the threat of sending sons and daughters to war will inspire an organized anti-war effort amongst Americans. They are hoping other state representatives will understand how real the war is if their private-school-educated, Yale-bound sons are sent to an increasingly unpopular war rather than faceless names.

There is nothing wrong with being active in politics and writing to local newspapers with valid concerns. In fact, college is the time when everyone should be deciding what they believe in and what they're willing to take a stand for.

But activists must be informed to make any sort of impact.

No one can take a certain position seriously if basic facts are ignored or avoided. It takes validity and credibility away from the cause.

Students taking up a cause should research it. Then, they should take the time to put the reasons for the cause in their own words. Packaged statements from an obviously biased source does little to convince real people with average intelligence.