[extropy-chat] Re: Fwd: Manditory draft for your child?

[David Lubkin]

Beyond what Spike and Mike said, let me seize the opportunity to take a 
caber from last week's Highland Games, sharpen one end, add a steel casing, 
and use a railgun to accelerate it at 9800 fps through the heart of the 
Hoax That Will Not Die.

As the email suggests, check it out at the Congressional web site, 
thomas.loc.gov. The bill was introduced on 1/7/2003 and referred to 
committee on 2/3/2003. It has gone nowhere since.

According to Americans for Democratic Action, all sponsors of both bills 
are Democrats and strongly liberal. Bill sponsors or co-sponsors, and their 
2003 ADA rating --

85%     Rep Rangel, Charles [NY-15]

95%     Rep Abercrombie, Neil - 1/7/2003 [HI-1]
95%     Rep Brown, Corrine - 1/28/2003 [FL-3]
n/a     Rep Christensen, Donna M. - 5/19/2004 [VI]
95%     Rep Clay, Wm. Lacy - 1/28/2003 [MO-1]
90%     Rep Conyers, John, Jr. - 1/7/2003 [MI-14]
90%     Rep Cummings, Elijah E. - 1/28/2003 [MD-7]
100%    Rep Hastings, Alcee L. - 1/28/2003 [FL-23]
95%     Rep Jackson-Lee, Sheila - 1/28/2003 [TX-18]
90%     Rep Lewis, John - 1/7/2003 [GA-5]
100%    Rep McDermott, Jim - 1/7/2003 [WA-7]
95%     Rep Moran, James P. - 1/28/2003 [VA-8]
n/a     Rep Norton, Eleanor Holmes - 1/28/2003 [DC]
100%    Rep Stark, Fortney Pete - 1/7/2003 [CA-13]
90%     Rep Velazquez, Nydia M. - 1/28/2003 [NY-12]

In the Senate, S.89 was introduced by Fritz Hollings (80% rating) without 
cosponsors on 1/7/2003, and was immediately referred to committee. There 
has been no action since.

ADA declares itself to be "the nation's oldest independent liberal 
organization," and says its ratings "have served as the standard guideline 
measuring a legislator's political liberalism" since 1947.

See http://www.adaction.org/2003housevr.htm for House ratings; 
http://www.adaction.org/2003senatevr.htm for Senate ratings. Christensen 
and Norton are non-voting delegates (Virgin Islands and DC), so they lack 
ratings.

Meanwhile, DOD's immediate response to the bill was strong opposition. In 
the Washington Post --
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A25077-2003Jan7?language=printer

>Rumsfeld said troops from Vietnam War conscription added "no value, no 
>advantage, really, to the United States armed services ... because the 
>churning that took place, it took an enormous amount of effort in terms of 
>training, and then they were gone."
>
>Air Force Gen. Richard B. Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, 
>seconded Rumsfeld's assessment during a Pentagon news conference.
>
>The Pentagon rebuff came minutes after Rep. Charles B. Rangel (D-N.Y.) 
>announced he had introduced a measure to require all U.S. citizens and 
>permanent residents ages 18 to 26 to complete two years of compulsory 
>service inside or outside the armed forces.

For Rumsfeld's and Myers' full answer, see the press conference transcript at
http://www.dod.gov/transcripts/2003/t01072003_t0107sd.html

They remain opposed, a year later, as the Washington Times reported --
http://www.washtimes.com/national/20040422-114404-5320r.htm

>"I don't know anyone in the executive branch of the government who 
>believes it would be appropriate or necessary to reinstitute the draft," 
>Mr. Rumsfeld told a Washington gathering of members of the Newspaper 
>Association of America, the American Society of Newspaper Editors and the 
>Associated Press.

The full transcript is at 
http://www.dod.gov/speeches/2004/sp20040422-secdef0441.html. Rumsfeld has 
fulminated more than once about why he views drafts as inane and harmful.


-- David Lubkin.