STRANGELAND.NET

This past Sunday Representative Charlie Rangel (D-NY) appeared on Chris Matthews Sunday Morning Fox show.  Mr. Matthews queried Rep. Rangel on his intention to once more bring forth legislation to institute a draft.  Rep. Rangel first proposed this idea in the 2003 Congress and it was never discussed in committee.  Even so, it provided a great deal of misinformation fodder for the 2004 election cycle with a number of e-mails and even Mainstream Media stories on the White House’s push to reinstate a draft.  Of course, all of that ignored that the only people that were sponsors of the bill were Democrats.

So, when Representative Rangel once again stated that he was going to introduce legislation to institute a draft, Mr. Wallace decided to ask him about it.  One of Rep. Rangel’s reasons is that he wants the draft to bring more equality into the Armed Forces.  It is his contention that the poor and minorities are disproportionately represented in the military.  This is not an uncommon feeling, Senator Kerry’s botched joke aside, it is a common belief that joining the military is a ticket out of economic privation, and the assumption that follows is that if you work hard in school and/or come from a richer/privileged background, that you will not join the military.

The odd part is that a comprehensive study of the recruiting practices of the military and the demographics of its recruits was produced by the Heritage Foundation in early November.  Who Are the Recruits? The Demographic Characteristics of U.S. Military Enlistment, 2003–2005 was released on October 27th and goes into extreme detail in looking at military recruiting pre and post Iraq.  The findings of this study are very interesting.  For one, the study shows that the percentage of recruits that are high school graduates is much higher then the national average.  It also shows that the percentage of the poor that join the military is decreasing (by 25% from 1999 to 2005).  In short it debunks almost every statement that Representative Rangel made.

So, Chris Matthews brings this up to Rep. Rangel directly and in his now famous response, Rep. Rangel stated:

If there’s anyone who believes that these youngsters want to fight, as the Pentagon and some generals have said, you can just forget about it. No young, bright individual wants to fight just because of a bonus and just because of educational benefits. And most all of them come from communities of very, very high unemployment. If a young fellow has an option of having a decent career or joining the Army to fight in Iraq, you can bet your life that he would not be in Iraq.

There has been a fair amount of criticism from various groups (such as the VFW) saying that Rep. Rangel was wrong in his statement.  I actually disagree.  Today I was reading an article on National Review that summed up my view fairly well.

Rangel is flat wrong when he suggests that service in the military is not “a decent career.” He may however be right about one thing: Most people don’t want to fight for a bonus or an education opportunity, because a desire to fight for one’s country goes much deeper than that.

In thinking back to the time when I joined the military (Army Reserve and National Guard), the $2000 bonus that I got was nice (though I only ever got $1500 of it), but it had little to do with my desire to join.  While I was looking for an ROTC scholarship, my goal was combat arms.  I felt then that like my Father before me that the US is a country that is worth fighting for.  Its hard to put into words the feelings that motivate a person to give up their personal freedom to be a part of the military.  Reasons differ, and while economics certainly plays a part, there are better ways to make a buck then joining the armed forces.  What motivates most enlistees is a desire to be a part of the military and to serve their country.  Representative Rangel was right in that he said that its not just because of a bonus or educational benefits…its much more basic and important.  A love of the United States and a desire to serve.  That kind of dedication you cannot put a price tag on…and the insult is Representative Rangel’s disdain for those who truly want to serve.  One would think a decorated veteran would know better.

dbroussa Uncategorized

In elections like the one just past, where a significant number of seats shift and control of both chambers of Congress changes, I think it’s generally appropriate to infer a healthy sense of a desire for “change” on the part of the electorate more than any kind of significant mandate for the winning party’s “plan.” Indeed, explicit “plans” like the 1994 Republican “Contract with America” tend to be the exception rather than the rule. Ronald Reagan bulilt much of the Republicans’ success of 1980 on a warm but unclear sense of “morning in America,” in large part because of a real degree of unease about President Carter’s foreign-policy aptitude. The electorate can and does eventually see a point where perhaps the best advice is to stop digging.

Almost as much as a message to stop digging on Iraq, about which I make no comment, I think this election turned on a sense of ethics/lobbying reform. In fact, polls show “corruption” as the second most important issue in the election. As a political scientist and a partisan Democrat by virtue of there being no other real choice for me, I have been interested in seeing what they propose to do, if anything, about the perceived need for reform.

The NY Times today reports that the Democratic leadership is working on a package of reform proposals that they’ll introduce when Congress convenes in January. Those proposals, as far as I can see, are almost entirely targeted on lobbying reform, which to me is a profound disappointment. While the proposals include much-needed reform of lobbyist-provided travel, noticably lacking is any attempt at all to reduce the fiscally disastrous and electorally rewarding practice of

Of course, simply following the rules as they are now will result in significantly less corruption than the previous regime, at least for now. However, I call on all persons interested in fiscal sanity in our lifetimes to contact their legislators, Democratic or Republican, and insist on earmark reform.

arr_squared Uncategorized

I was reading an article found here this morning. Reading through it, I found a wonderful little gem at the end of the article: He is charged with concealing more than $10,000 in his luggage. Whatever nuclear information he may or may not have on his laptop not withstanding, I’m utterly flabbergasted that someone could be charged with concealing money in their luggage.

Looking at things like this, it truly makes you wonder just how much personal liberty has been silently eroded over the years. It should not be the business of the Federal Government how much money I want to carry in my luggage. Nor should I have to declare to them how much I’m carrying. Quite frankly, it’s none of their business. If I want to risk putting a million in cash in my luggage when I go on a trip, then that’s my business and not their place to stop me.

Yes, I understand that many laws of this nature were put into place to provide law enforcement ways of arresting criminals (notably drug criminals) on whom they could not get stronger charges. I’ll spare the readership a mini-rant on the idiocy of the War on Drugs at this point, but laws like this being on the book simply illustrates more and more that Americans would much rather have a safe America than a free America.

In the end, it may prove to be a good thing that the dogs smelled the narcotics on this guy’s cash and were able to find the laptop. From a viewpoint of civil liberties for all Americans, I’m continually troubled by the intrusiveness that the War on Drugs has injected into our lives in the interests of protecting us from things that should be a personal decision. Unfortunately, I think far too many people will ignore with what Mr. Dinssa has been charged, focusing solely on the question of what exactly is on his laptop. Of course, what do you expect when it’s buried at the bottom of the article as an afterthought.

stranger Uncategorized