A Stitch in Haste

No unifying theme except that politicians are involved:

ITEM: Representative Charles Rangel (D-NY) has repeated his call for a military draft --

Rangel, a veteran of the Korean War who has unsuccessfully sponsored legislation on conscription in the past, has said the all-volunteer military disproportionately puts the burden of war on minorities and lower-income families.
...
"I don't see how anyone can support the war and not support the draft," said Rangel, who also proposed a draft in January 2003, before the U.S. invasion of Iraq. "I think to do so is hypocritical."

MY TAKE: Huh? "Disproportionately" is meaningless gobbledygook — what could possibly be more "proportionate" than an all-volunteer military? What could possibly be more "hypocritical" than claiming that a war is "just" while fighting it via the most unjust action a government can take — conscription? And — it needs to be said — there is something downright nauseating about a black leader advocating involuntary servitude; it boggles the mind.

Previous thread on the draft, including Rangel, here. More thoughts from Liberty Papers, Bureaucrash, Liberty Papers again.

(SIDEBAR: Richard Posner, always the central planner wannabe, endorses the potential desirability of a draft in his bashing review of Milton Friedman's work. Posner's reasoning: that a draft might be "better" than higher taxes. This is apparently what qualifies as a great mind these days. See my response in the first comment.)

---

ITEM: Outgoing Massachusetts governor, and anti-gay bigot, Mitt Romney plans to ask for help from — who else? — activist judges --

Gov. Mitt Romney said Sunday he would ask the state's highest court to order an anti-gay marriage amendment question onto the ballot if legislators fail to vote on the matter when they reconvene in January.

Romney said he would file a legal action this week asking a justice of the Supreme Judicial Court to direct the secretary of state to place the question on the ballot if lawmakers don't vote directly on the question Jan. 2, the final day of the session.

MY TAKE: This grandstanding pandering to the rednecks trumps even the absurdity of Romney's fellow Republican anti-gay bigot, California governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, who vetoed a same-sex marriage bill (i.e., "defied the will of the majority") so that "courts could decide the issue." At least a gubernatorial veto is an actual component of the governmental process in California. There is, however, no procedural basis, none whatsoever, for the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court to intervene in this matter. The Massachusetts Legislature is acting (or, more correctly, declining to act) precisely as the state constitution authorizes. The only legitimate response for the disappointed governor is "oh well." Instead, Romney is looking to those very same judges he blasts as "activists." Sometimes you can just choke on the hypocrisy.

Previous posts on Romney here and here.

---

ITEM: DNC Chairman Howard Dean, who once famously insisted that the Democratic platform stated that marriage is between a man and a woman, is now telling gays that they shouldn't be pestering the Democrats for any actual progress on gay rights, but should instead be happy that there are some gay politicians here and there (oh, and that Democrats will raise the minimum wage — which apparently is, somehow, relevant to gay rights).

MY TAKE: Just as Charlie Rangel can introduce "symbolic" legislation to reinstate the draft, the Democrats in Congress can now pass "symbolic" repeals of "Don't Ask Don't Tell," the Solomon Amendments and — most importantly — federal DOMA, regardless of whether President Bush would veto any such legisaltion. Will the Democrats do so? And if they don't, then why, exactly, is being a gay Democrat any less indicative of self-loathing than being a gay Republican?

---

ITEM: Can't have a post like this without including John "Politician" McCain --

I'm a federalist. Just as I believe that the issue of gay marriage should be decided by the states, so do I believe that we would be better off by having Roe v. Wade return to the states. And I don't believe the Supreme Court should be legislating in the way that they did on Roe v. Wade.

MY TAKE: This is a flat-out flip-flop by Mr. Straight Talk, who said back in 2000 that he does not support overturning Roe. But now he's running for president again, which means he has to pander to the Red State Rednecks again. Go figure.

Incidentally, he's wrong as a matter of constitutional law anyway, as I've noted before: If the Supreme Court overturns Roe, that would not "send it back to the states" — it would send it back to Congress.

As for McCain's gobbledygook about gay marriage, there is nothing "federalist" about letting states relegate minorities to second-class citizenship. There is nothing "preferable" about allowing bigotry at the state level instead of the national level — unless of course you're a national politician seeking to sidestep the issue.