Tuesday, November 21, 2006

Why Our Politicians Cower from the Draft: It is VERY BROKEN

Rep. Charlie Rangel, D-N.Y., tried to revive his New Year's Eve 2002 call for a military draft. more here Even his own party abandons him now, as House Speaker Pelosi stated today. The Republican House brought it up for a vote in 2004, and Mr. Rangel himself voted against his own measure like 401 other House members..

HERE IS THE REAL PROBLEM:
A draft like those of the past would be unacceptable today thanks to social engineering lead by the Democrat party and other lawyers. It was not wrong, but implications to the universal draft were ignored by the genius lawyers infesting Washington, DC!

Nowadays, women have equal employment rights, which have been extended to military service in all branches. In order to draft 25,000 Marines or combat infantry troops, the net has to be cast to include the majority gender (females), which unfortunately will not yield 25,000 combat infantry troops. It will yield about 12,675 women draftees (assuming required fitness) and about 12,375 male draftees (same assumption).

While the taxpayer would be required to process, train and pay both groups, the "universal draft" would be among the least efficient social engineering programs yet devised by the Democrats.

If females were not subject to the universal draft, the number of lawsuits generated nowadays would also keep a cadre of lawyers employed (strike that) paid for several years. And, do you know why? Because, if women were left in the civilian workplace while men were drafted out of it, whose eligibility for civilian job promotions would be sacrificed? Hint: Not the females.

The workplace has gotten very competitive thanks to equal employment opportunities for women. Large corporations currently have an unstated preference for women (and other "minorities") in managerial posts in order to demonstrate compliance with EEOC regulations. So, when a male has to leave for military service, he is guaranteed only a position like what he left, not the promotion he had been competing for until then. The stakes are high enough to generate plenty of litigation.

As a taxpayer, I am not prepared to foot the incremental bill for such foolishness, are you?

Fix the draft before we really need it!

4 Comments:

At 23 November, 2006 15:54, Blogger SonarMan said...

Happy Thanksgiving to you and yours.

 
At 24 November, 2006 20:21, Blogger Vigilis said...

Sonarman, you are a exceptional person. Thank you so much for your thoughtful expression, and all the best to you and yours!

 
At 11 December, 2006 22:58, Blogger Skippy-san said...

Your point is correct, but it points out a huge flaw in DOD's current line of thinking. That women are "esential" to our armed services. They are not and any draft law would need to be constructed to exclude them. Seems to me though that the law could be constructed where it would be exempted from any EEO provisions. Just as other military laws are exempt from scrutiny-like 4th amendment protections.

 
At 12 December, 2006 13:16, Blogger Vigilis said...

Skippy-san, your suggested fixes must certainly be on the table when/if repair of our draft is finally undertaken.

I fear, however, the lawyers infesting and dominating our U.S. Senate will tend to validate EEO applicability to conscription, assure we grant its provisions to illegal imigrants, and perhaps attempt application to those "wronged by unjust confinement at Guantanamo."

Thank you, as always, for your comments.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home

| Weblog Commenting and Trackback by HaloScan.com