Then may one logically conclude it, indeed, a draft?
I confess I was busy over the holiday season, and I was a bit remiss in keeping my "ear to the railroad tracks." However, the gifts have been opened, the tree and its trimmings have been dismantled. Now is the time to return to "the real world."
What do I find occurred during my momentary absence?
Comes now the U.S. Selective Service and its "preparations" for a "test." This isn't a test of the Emergency Broadcasting System, but a test of the military DRAFT system which the United States abandoned years ago.
Planning for the Area Office Mobilization Prototype Exercise -- I'm surprised I wasn't confronted with an acronym for such a tongue-twister -- is slated to commence in June or July of 2007 for a test to be conducted in 2009.
I just have to pose the question: Why would an agency be making preparations for a test of a draft system which is no longer operational?
Once again, I seem to be employing the "Duck Theory." You know the one I am speaking of, don't you? It goes something like this: If it looks like a duck, if it quacks like a duck, then it must be a duck...or is that a DRAFT in this case?
I confess I was busy over the holiday season, and I was a bit remiss in keeping my "ear to the railroad tracks." However, the gifts have been opened, the tree and its trimmings have been dismantled. Now is the time to return to "the real world."
What do I find occurred during my momentary absence?
Comes now the U.S. Selective Service and its "preparations" for a "test." This isn't a test of the Emergency Broadcasting System, but a test of the military DRAFT system which the United States abandoned years ago.
Planning for the Area Office Mobilization Prototype Exercise -- I'm surprised I wasn't confronted with an acronym for such a tongue-twister -- is slated to commence in June or July of 2007 for a test to be conducted in 2009.
I just have to pose the question: Why would an agency be making preparations for a test of a draft system which is no longer operational?
Once again, I seem to be employing the "Duck Theory." You know the one I am speaking of, don't you? It goes something like this: If it looks like a duck, if it quacks like a duck, then it must be a duck...or is that a DRAFT in this case?
powered by performancing firefox
