Vermont

Reading in today's NY Times (pagr A11) that towns in Vermont, backed by anti-war, are debating whether National Gaurd should be over in Iraq fighting instead of being prepared for natural disasters in the States. This really surprises me you could even have this kind of debate. I know they are National Gaurd so the general idea is that they won't be deployed overseas (whether that is the correct assumption is quite debatable) but when did the idea come that their primary job is natural disaster assistance? They're soldiers. When they sign up they are fully aware they may have to kill for their country. We even call them "weekend warriors". Why would they be trained to use guns and other implements of death if they weren't supposed to fight?
Historically national guard units have always been active. As far as I can tell since it's been nationally organized the National Guard has been called up to fight. So why do anti-war people suddenly think that's changed? It just seems ridiculous to me that they'll try anything to oppose the process including trying to re-classify people. Not one person in Iraq is there involuntarily. Everyone of them signed on to a job that entailed being sent into a hostile situation.

So yeah, that's my randomly frustrated post of the week that. (Different from my usual, depressed me posts!)

BTW, isn't it scary that Vermont's ex-gov is now in charge of the Dem's?

And Eric and I had a great debate on social security and welfare (also whether God support capitolism, an odd topic I'll grant but it relates sort of if you know us). Have to put Eric's new blog up soon (when I have some time back home).