Rangel once again proposes a new draft bill (hell no we won't go?)

Conceptually, there isn't anything wrong with a draft. For example, if the existence of the state is threatened, it would be entirely justifiable to suspend civil liberties until the threat can be managed. Simply put, a constitution isn't a suicide pact. If the younger elements of the population must be conscripted in order to keep the state intact, and thus preserve its way of life, then it should be done regardless of whether or not it tramples on anyone's right to serve. To put it another way, what good is a bill of rights and a constitution if there are insufficient means to protect or enforce it?

There's nowhere I can't reach.

Rangel can propose a draft because he represents a poor district with tons of people already in the military. I think his point _should_ be looked at. As the army stands now it's

I don't fully agree with Gecko3 that rich members will be able to escape draft. Not if they take some reasonable means to prevent it. The super-rich who have connections will always be able to get out of things--but they are limited in number. The well-enough-off-middle-class like myself will not be able to get out of it. The result would be a pissed off middle class (if the war wasn't accepted) which would be listened to unlike our dirty poor.

So, I buy Rangel's argument. The draft isn't about improving the military. I've seen two sides of the debate: "draftees don't want to be there and are bad soldiers", "draftees defected less during Vietnam than the volunteers". So, I don't know if it helps or hurts the military. I do think it's important and would help to stop adventurism in policy. The question is, do we want to stop it? If we can go to Iraq with minimal public outcry is that good or bad?

I like to pretend I support social justice (despite sitting back while the poor starve) so I think it would be an interesting and worthwhile experiment.

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.