Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
Good ol' DaveScot took a moment out from saying breathtakingly stupid things about evolution to say some breathtakingly stupid things about politics. In particular, he's aimed two absurd criticisms at James Webb, whose response to the state of the union speech I didn't watch, nor do I care to. But these two arguments from DaveScot are just ridiculous. He starts with this:
As I was watching the Democratic response to President Bush's State Of The Union speech tonight Senator Jim Webb played the United States Marine card three times (for himself, his brother, and his son all Marines). I take it personally when someone does that.
Now this is where it gets really, really funny. He "takes it personally" when someone speaks about their experience as a Marine in Vietnam. So now he's going to...speak about his non-experience as a Marine in Vietnam. And he's going to use that non-experience to make a staggeringly idiotic argument:
The first thing Webb does is claims to know better than the president and all the president's advisors how to effectively fight terrorism because, well, Jim was a Marine in Vietnam. Well Jim, I was a Marine at the end of the Vietnam war. I didn't go, it was mostly over by then, but one thing I noticed was that all the non-commissioned officers senior to me were real combat veterans. They knew how to survive guerilla warfare in an Asian backwater. Me and my generation of Marines, all we did was play at wargames 4 weeks a year in the Mojave desert. No one was trying to kill us, no foreign language was spoken by the natives, no guerillas in civilian clothes running around, none of that. After 30 years of that kind of experience our military was virtually without anyone in any rank who'd had actual combat experience. Here's the deal Jim. In order to have an effective force in fighting guerilla and urban wars in Arab countries we need actual combat veterans seasoned in that type of warfare leading the unseasoned troops. Use your head, Jim. Now we have an effective force led by NCOs who know how to survive urban and guerilla wars in Arab countries. And Bush managed to build that force without losing 58,000 American lives as were sacrificed in Vietnam but rather limited the losses to 3,000. Use your head for something other than a place to put your hat, Jim. We needed a veteran ground combat force for the Middle Eastern theater. Now we have one. Now what happened to Russia in Afghanistan won't happen to us.
You can't bet a much better definition of irony than that, a guy with no combat experience criticizing a guy with combat experience for knowing more than another guy without combat experience. Notice he doesn't mention how the Bush administration ignored the advice of innumerable people with combat experience in their plans for the Iraq war, choosing instead the inexperienced Rumsfeld's now thoroughly discredited plans for the war, which thoroughly botched the job.
Notice also the absurdity of his argument: the war in Iraq was justified because we needed to get our officers some experience at war in the Middle East. So who cares if the war was justified, if it was well planned, if it would actually make the region more or less safe, whether it would achieve any strategic goals, or any other legitimate consideration. All that matters is that some of our troops got some experience. Who cares that a few hundred thousand people are dead, or that tens of thousands of Americans are either dead or wounded, or that we've spent a trillion dollars; it's all worth it to prepare for the next ill-planned and ill-conceived war. And as for the notion that what happened to Russia in Afghanistan won't happen to us, I dare say that it already has happened to us.
But it actually gets worse. He quotes this statement from Webb:
When I graduated from college, the average corporate CEO made 20 times what the average worker did; today, it's nearly 400 times. In other words, it takes the average worker more than a year to make the money that his or her boss makes in one day.
And he responds:
This is just utter dreck. The average CEO salary in the United States today is $1.2 million according to a survey by Pearl Meyer & Partners mentioned on Money Central. What Webb failed to mention is that at the largest 50 companies the average is $10.7 million. Meanwhile the average worker salary in the U.S. was $37,000 in 2002 according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. I don't know about Senator Webb's calculator but when I divide 1,200,000 by 37,000 the answer is 32.
Wow. How many ways could one dishonestly use statistics in one paragraph? First of all, notice how DaveScot changes the ground. Webb is talking about what CEOs make but DaveScot changes to their salary only, ignoring many other forms of compensation. And the very article he cites on Money Central makes that distinction and adds up the other forms of compensation as well:
In a survey of 50 large U.S. companies, restricted stock and other performance-based incentives constituted 41% of long-term CEO compensation, up from 18% in 2003. The percentage was the highest since 1994.Stock options, meanwhile, constituted 59% of long-term awards, down from 82%, according to the survey released Thursday by Pearl Meyer & Partners, a New York-based pay consultant. Long-term awards, which exclude salaries and bonuses, accounted for about 63% of total compensation.
ccording to the survey, the average CEO salary was unchanged at $1.2 million. The average long-term incentive, meanwhile, more than doubled to $2.7 million, and the average option grant fell 23% to $4 million.
So when you add in deferred compensation and stock options grants, you're right back up there around $10 million a year. And if you add up the entire Forbes 500 CEO compensation, you come up with an average of $10.2 million, so those figures are just about right. It's more like 250-300 times the average salary, but it's a hell of a lot higher than 32.
Even worse, the average CEO loses 50% of his salary in state & local income taxes while the average worker loses 20%. So it's really $600,000 vs. $30,000 which is a factor of 20. Wow. When take-home pay is compared the average CEO makes 20 times the average worker.
Which completely ignores the availability of tax shelters for the wealthy, which helps them shield an enormous percentage of their income from taxation, both at the individual and corporate level. The average major corporation in this country pays 17.2% in taxes, compared to the putative tax rate of 35%. The average wealthy individual, through the use of tax free investments and tax shelters, manages to pay far less than the published tax rate for their income.
I'm all for lowering taxes across the board, and I don't suggest any policy to do away with the disparity between worker pay and CEO pay, so I don't have a dog in this hunt. But I know dishonest manipulation of statistics when I see it, and DaveScot is clearly engaging in exactly that, ignoring data from the very sources he cites to supports his opinion and deliberately choosing the wrong figures to support his argument.
To make the punchline even better, Mike Dunford left a comment there, which I will reproduce below. After he left the comment he emails and says someone needs to archive that page because he was sure DaveScot was gonna pull his comment, though it was entirely substantive and polite. DaveScot is so predictable that, in fact, I had just archived it thinking exactly the same thing. Here is Mike's comment:
OK. My wife's in the box right now, and you're suggesting that having troops out there is good because it gives us a better combat force? A lot of people have said a lot of really thoughtless and assinine things about the Iraq war, but that one just takes the cake. It's dumb so many different ways that it's really, really hard to figure out where to start.1) Even if I assume, for the sake of argument, that everything else is correct, we were already involved in a guerilla war when the Iraq war started. Believe it or not, but there really are troops in Afghanistan, and they are really - still - involved in regular and frequent combat ops. There just aren't as many of them and they aren't getting blown up as frequently. Actually, I've heard from quite a few people who have been deployed in both locations (including my wife) that they saw much more combat in Afghanistan than in Iraq.
2) When we started this war, as you point out, there weren't a lot of combat veterans in the force. Strangely, that didn't seem to have much of an adverse effect on how they did at the start.
3) A hell of a lot of the troops over there right now are 2nd, 3rd, and even 4th tour vets. Yet there doesn't seem to have been much of an increase in success, and certainly not much of a decrease in casualties, after the point when combat vets became common in deploying units.
4) The force right now is in a hell of a lot worse shape than it was three years ago. Pretty much everyone in the army who is career combat arms and enlisted prior to 03 has gone out more than once already. Many (particularly in the aviation community) are on 3rd or 4th tours. Divorce rates are up, and a lot of good people who ordinarily would have stayed in for 20+ are getting out with 15 or more years in - sacrificing pensions - because their marriages will be destroyed if they have to go out yet again. That's why we've seen active duty 4-stars out in front of congress recently, begging for more troops and warning about long-term problems.
So try using your own head, would you?
Mike's wife is a physician with the military in Iraq, helping stitch up the wounded. He's got a bit of moral credibility on this argument, as does Webb as a former Marine himself and the father of a current Marine in Iraq. DaveScot, being the incredible hypocrite that he is, says he "takes it personally" when someone refers to their own credibility in this regard, yet he - someone who has never seen combat despite being a Marine in his younger days - somehow thinks his experience trumps theirs.
True to form, Dave not only deleted Dunford's comment without any substantive reply, he closed off and deleted all the comments. Well, this happened in two stages. First he left this idiotic comment himself:
I knew I should have limited comments to just those who've served in my beloved corps. Frankly, if you haven't served in the military yourself I don't think you deserve an opinion. Put that in your bunched up panties and sit on them.
Isn't that funny? He dismisses the opinion of anyone who hasn't served in the military, but he also dismisses the opinion of those who have served in the military if those opinions conflict with his. After he realized how stupid that comment probably made him look, he decided to delete all of the comments and close them off. All of this was entirely predictable, of course; we've seen it a dozen times out of Gilligan DaveScot and out of the skipper Dembski as well. Whenever they say something that blows up in their face, they try to disappear it down the memory hole. If they didn't exist, I dare say we would have to invent (design?) them; they are too amusing to be non-existent.
Comments
Oh, people still check in over at UncommonDescent? I thought it had gone far past the point of entertainment by now, and offered nothing worth picking apart. Yet, it seems that Dave Springer is indefatigable when it comes to providing fodder for laughs.
After the falling out with Dembski...the "situation" with "UdreamofJanie"...the daily mistakes and errors he propagates about science...
Think he'll ever tire of making an ass of himself?
Posted by: Daniel Morgan | January 25, 2007 10:24 AM
Webb probably got his data from the same place the ALF-CIO did for this article:
http://www.aflcio.org/corporatewatch/paywatch/pay/index.cfm
They have a figure of $13.5 million for the average total compensation of the Fortune 500 CEOs, which is pretty much in line with 400 times average salaries of workers.
DaveScot is a bully and a coward, and can't stand to be proven wrong about anything, even about the slightest, most inconsequential detail. In fact, he has all the perfect character traits to be Dembski's lackey and sycophant.
Posted by: tacitus | January 25, 2007 10:24 AM
While wiping his comment was certainly cowardly and stupid and par for the course, I' not sure how it could be accurately construed as polite.
After all, it does contain passages like: "A lot of people have said a lot of really thoughtless and asinine things about the Iraq war, but that one just takes the cake. It's dumb so many different ways that it's really, really hard to figure out where to start."
and
"So try using your own head, would you?"
I'm just sayin is all...
Posted by: plunge | January 25, 2007 10:34 AM
I thought Webb's comments about being from a military family were about his empathy with the soldiers, his understanding of the value and importance of military action, and the responsibilities it puts on the leaders to provide clear evidence about the benefits/cost of the war to soldiers and the nation.
I don't remember him saying being a soldier meant he knew more about fighting terrorism than the president. Is there a transcript reference or something?
Posted by: John B | January 25, 2007 10:38 AM
Ok Dave, I served in the military. US Army scout. Served in the first gulf war too. Here's my opinion. You're a fuckin' idiot. Do you listen to yourself talk? You couldn't possibly. You know, I now unfortunately have an answer for all the assholes who asked me, why didn't you finish the job when you were over there? Everybody knew it was a bad idea. How 'bout 41? Didn't he and Baker write that op-ed in Time about why it was a bad idea? Oh that's right. Dave the Marine non-combat veteran knows better than everybody. Fuck you. Yeah, I take what you said personally because I AM a combat veteran. Ever seen someone without a head, asshole? How 'bout burnt beyond recognition? No? You should see it. You never forget it. I lost god on the "highway of death". You obviously found him and both of you are pricks. Go to hell. Me? I've been there...
Posted by: Scott A | January 25, 2007 10:40 AM
Thanks for the summary, Ed. DaveScot never ceases to supply idiotic arguments. He's a case study in cognitive dissonance.
Posted by: Bourgeois_Rage | January 25, 2007 10:47 AM
You can't bet a much better definition of irony than that, a guy with no combat experience criticizing a guy with combat experience for knowing more than another guy without combat experience.
Actually, you can do a LOT better in the irony department, merely by adding that DaveScot is defending a President who never himself served, used his family connections to avoid service, never made any significant sacrifice for any common good, and never succeeded on his own at any meaningful endeavor in his entire so-called adult life, without his Daddy and friends having to clean up his mess (which, in fact, Daddy is now trying to do in Iraq).
And this comment by Dave Scott...
Frankly, if you haven't served in the military yourself I don't think you deserve an opinion. Put that in your bunched up panties and sit on them.
...should have been directed at Bush Jr.
Posted by: Raging Bee | January 25, 2007 10:50 AM
We needed a veteran ground combat force for the Middle Eastern theater. Now we have one. Now what happened to Russia in Afghanistan won't happen to us.
Um... by Dave's "logic," shouldn't Russia, by gaining experience with troops on the ground fighting guerilla forces in Afghanistan, have won Afghanistan?
If you can step back from it a bit, Dave's effort to be a little tin god comes off as kind of adorable, really.
Posted by: Boo | January 25, 2007 11:07 AM
Hey Scot A - Well said. If you want to see more discussion about the stupidity that IS Dave Scot Springer, fomer Marine (he says, but who really knows?), and current 100% Dembski sycophant and buthole, visit:
http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin/ikonboard/ikonboard.cgi?s=45b8d500bb66ebd6;act=ST;f=14;t=1274;st=11070
It would be good to have a combat vet available to comment the next time he blathers on about something he knows nothing about too.
Posted by: J-Dog | January 25, 2007 11:07 AM
March 2003
Dear people of Iraq,
The wargames over here at Twentynine Palms are getting a bit dull. Live-ammo range exercises don't really combat-harden the participants, and urban warfare training with paintball guns isn't very realistic. Could you supply volunteers to play the Red Team---say, ~100K live targets and ~28M live obstacles? (Time required: indefinite. No exchanges or refunds.)
Thanks for your help,
DaveScot
Posted by: Ben M | January 25, 2007 11:09 AM
Thanks J-Dog. I've been a long time lurker to the SB's so I know a little about the davetard. Douchebag is the first thing that comes to mind. I'd be happy to lend my assistance.
The funny thing is his military experience is totally irrelevant to his argument. He's like the security guard that couldn't make it in the military or police. Quit overcompensating dude. Just sit back, relax, and continue to be average.
Posted by: Scott A | January 25, 2007 11:22 AM
To be fair, Bush did serve in the TANG. He may not have, probably didn't, complete his service; he certainly checked the box that he didn't want to volunteer to go to Vietnam; and he did benefit from scurrilous campaigns against two veterens of that conflict, Gore and Kerry...
But he served.
Posted by: Lettuce | January 25, 2007 11:42 AM
Excuse my double-take, but if I'm reading this correctly, DaveScot got a comment by someone whose spouse is serving, and then said he should have allowed responses only by people in "his beloved corps?" And then he deleted that post, which was based on the experience of one who is serving? He deleted a post from (indirectly) one who is serving, then said that people who hadn't served didn't deserve an opinion?
I can't believe we're getting so much irony from someone with so little sense of irony. Is that ironic or what?
Damn, I need another new irony meter. DaveScot should buy be one -- and one of those rugged military models too, not the cheap WalMart crap.
Posted by: Raging Bee | January 25, 2007 11:51 AM
Webb didn't say Fortune 500 CEOs. Taking the average total compensation of the most successful 500 CEOs in the country without specifying it's a special group of CEOs is deceitful. There are tens of thousands of CEOs in the country. Small businesses are the nation's largest employer and CEOs of those don't make the huge incomes that Fortune 500 CEOs make. Webb either knew this and was knowingly deceitful or he was parroting what he'd been told and was incompetent for not checking it for accuracy.
And by the way, Senator Chuck Hagel, combat veteran opposed to Bush's plan, wants to reinstate the draft and have everyone in the country serve two years. I'm betting that DaveScot would heartily agree with Hagel there.
Posted by: TheUsualSuspect | January 25, 2007 12:04 PM
Don't know about Dave, but I would support that idea. Even in peacetime. Can you imagine how people's outlook would be different if everyone had to give 2 years of service to their country, regardless of rank, privilege, money, etc?
Posted by: chris | January 25, 2007 12:40 PM
Would it justify enslaving them for two years?
Posted by: Gretchen | January 25, 2007 12:45 PM
Come on, don't tell me when you heard this statement that you actually thought he meant small business owners make 200 times the salary of their employees, or that you think any sensible person interpreted it as such. Most people think "large company" when they hear "CEO"; what's deceitful about using language in the way people understand it?
(Aside: I just did a quick Google search for this topic, and the CNN article also fails to state the Fortune 500 bit -- are they being deceitful, too?)
Posted by: Davis | January 25, 2007 12:50 PM
Chris, it might be a nice thought in the abstract, but do you honestly think those with "rank, privilege, money" couldn't find a loophole to get out of service?
I wouldn't go so far as to call it enslavement, as Gretchen said, but I do agree that military support should be voluntary. This makes it so that if the war is totally unwinnable (like this one), then people can't be forced to basically commit suicide by draft.
Posted by: doctorgoo | January 25, 2007 12:56 PM
Gretchen: it's called "public obligation." It's no more "enslaving" than jury duty -- it's just longer lasting and more dangerous.
Posted by: Raging Bee | January 25, 2007 12:57 PM
20%? I never paid that little in taxes, ever. Even when I was working as a stocker at a grocery store, I paid more than 20% of my income in taxes. I'd love to know who does DaveScot's taxes. Or maybe not, since it sounds like any clients would be ripe for audits and tax fraud prosecution.
Posted by: Jason I. | January 25, 2007 12:59 PM
"Enslaving?" I take issue with that degree of rhetoric.
Germany requires military service from its men, though they have the option of alternative civilian service. I don't immediately see why this is a bad thing.
Posted by: Davis | January 25, 2007 12:59 PM
Davis, it can be a bad idea, if war hawks use the draft as an opportunity just to have more pawns on the chessboard. I fully believe that if the draft were to be reinstated, that Bush would put all of them in harms way as soon as possible. And not just in Iraq and Afganistan, but also by invading Iran and possibly even Korea.
If it were just a matter of mandatory civilian service, then I'd be okay with it. Jury duty: good. Draft: too easy to be exploited.
Posted by: doctorgoo | January 25, 2007 1:08 PM
Wow. I don't know if you guys read Mark Noonan, but this comment tops even his spectacular attempts to shove his head up Bush's ass. Is he really suggesting that this quagmire is actually a cunning plan on Bush's part to train up our military? The Catch-22 of it is stunning. We're stuck in a quagmire in the Middle East and we've turned most of the Arab world against us, so we need to have a combat force capable of fighting insurgencies there. How do we do that? By getting stuck in a quagmire in the Middle East, of course.
Posted by: Ginger Yellow | January 25, 2007 1:08 PM
To my eyes, if you forcibly constrict people into labor for a period of time, that's slavery-- even if you pay them. You're taking control of a person's body and determining that it work for you, regardless of what positive results you think it may bring. It's "immediately a bad thing" in the sense that forcing people to do your will is immediately a bad thing in all circumstances unless you can provide a damn good justification for it. What a horrible idea. People in the U.S. already pay for a multi-trillion dollar war which more than half of them at this point don't even support (not to mention countless other idiotic expenditures)....do you want to demand two years of their life as well? Yikes. Might as well put everyone in prison for the same amount of time, if the infringement on personal liberty hasn't come through yet.
Posted by: Gretchen | January 25, 2007 1:08 PM
That was meant to say "conscript," not "constrict"...though the latter word works as well I suppose.
Posted by: Gretchen | January 25, 2007 1:09 PM
That's one hell of a locality tax. Assuming he meant the state and Federal bite, he's still completely wrong.
First, he is overlooking the Fed SS and Medicare taxes. These completely cover the average Joe, but only the first 90,000 of the CEO's wages. So, just as far as wages go, CEO is ahead (I'm using NC for the state tax) 44% vs. 33% (I'm taking DaveScott's 20% and adding employment and NC state income taxes).
However, this is just wages. As pointed out, the CEO makes the majority of his income through stock options and other non-wage compensation. Long-term capital gains are only taxed at a maximum of 15% Federal and 8.25 % NC. No payroll tax required. So for the bulk of his income the CEO is being taxed at 23%. In other words, 10% less than the Average Joe.
Nice argument, Dave.
Posted by: kehrsam | January 25, 2007 1:13 PM
I see DaveScot is up to his usual silliness. A couple of weeks ago over at the Sandwalk, I called him out when he responded to a woman who said she found the banner at UD "ugly" with a racist remark. His response was to pop by my team blog and accuse us all of being racist hypocrites ourselves simply because we didn't happen to have any non-white folks on the AE TV show crew. If that's representative of the level of arguing that comes from DaveScot and Dembski, then I can easily see how ID has been able to make such impressive strides in the last few years!
Anyway, any of you in the mood for some more DaveScot hilarity are welcome to check this out.
Posted by: Martin Wagner | January 25, 2007 1:18 PM
I served two years as a draftee in the army shorly before the Vietnam War erupted, getting my discharge papers two months after Kennedy's assassination. While I didn't particularly find the experience fun at the time, I learned a lot about the military and the two years gave me an insider's view of something that resembles an authoritarian society. In retrospect I valued the time, even if it didn't involve combat, and think everyone should serve the nation in a similar capacity, either in the military or some kind of civilian service.
Posted by: Keanus | January 25, 2007 1:20 PM
Ironically, Davetard's post could be read to mean that experienced marines like Jim Webb make better decisions about combat than inexperienced marines like Davetard.
Posted by: steve s | January 25, 2007 1:43 PM
This isn't the first time Davetard has humiliated himself in regards to the Marines.
http://thequestionableauthority.blogspot.com/2006/05/davescott-and-new-depths-of-slime.html
Posted by: steve s | January 25, 2007 1:48 PM
Gretchen is absolutely right. A military draft is clearly unconstitutional and unjust. I don't care how anyone's outlook would change, no government has the legitimate authority to force anyone to serve in the military.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | January 25, 2007 2:20 PM
So he criticizes Webb for using the "Military" card, and then uses the same card himself when banning people from commenting on his post, saying that those with no military experience can't have an opinion?
That makes a lot of sense.
Posted by: Saint Gasoline | January 25, 2007 3:17 PM
I am curious, Ed, to your basis for stating that the government has no legitimate power to force military service? I would say that my reading of Federalist 41 would indicate that the Founders did not put constitutional limits on the governments ability to raise armies. Indeed, in 41, Madison wrote "If a federal Constitution could chain the ambition or set bounds to the exertions of all other nations, then indeed it might prudently chain the discretion of its own government, and set the bounds to the exertions for its own safety." Why do you think mandatory conscription is unconstitutional?
Of course, I understand that Madison was particularly addressing concerns about the maintenance of a standing army. But the theme of the government maintaining powers adequate to address the "national exigencies" is a recurring theme in the Federalist Papers.
Posted by: carlsonjok | January 25, 2007 3:21 PM
carlsonjok wrote:
A standing army is hardly the same thing as a conscripted army. And the 13th amendment forbids the draft.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | January 25, 2007 3:24 PM
Ed - If the 13th amendment forbids the draft, why did I almost move to Canada back when I was a kid? It worked out okay, as I wound up being #366 in the draft lottery after they eliminated student deferments.
Ran into a guy in the library during finals one year... he had the same exact DOB as me, but had volunteerd to avoid the draft and he wound up in Viet Nam the day they made our DOB last in the lottery.
Crazy times.
Posted by: J-Dog | January 25, 2007 3:55 PM
Ed - If the 13th amendment forbids the draft, why did I almost move to Canada back when I was a kid? It worked out okay, as I wound up being #366 in the draft lottery after they eliminated student deferments.
The 4th amendment forbids warrantless searching, so why did people fighting the President's wiretapping program?
The 1st amendment forbids the government from endorsing religion, so why did people have to fight the Dover school board?
Posted by: Will | January 25, 2007 4:10 PM
I understand that a conscripted army is not the same as a standing army. I only offered the qualification in order to acknowledge the context that Madison was writing under. My main point is that the Founders (at least Hamilton and Madison vis-a-vis The Federalist) were quite clear that they expected the federal government to possess and exercise powers in a manner effective to the dangers that the nation faced.
Now, I think I've read enough of your writings to get that you aren't a strict originalist. For that matter, neither am I. But, even as a believer in a living Constitution, I find your statement about the 13th Amendment rather expansive. I understand that you view forced conscription as involuntary servitude. Fair enough. There is a grammatic symmetry and I am not predisposed to disagree with it as a philosophical statement. But, I am curious if there is any judicial authority to that interpretation, particularly given that we had a draft for over a century after the 13th was ratified.
Also, and apart from that, I am struggling to square the unconstitutionality of a forced conscription with the Founder's intent for a vigorous government with powers equal to the challenges it would face.
Posted by: carlsonjok | January 25, 2007 4:11 PM
On reflection, I acknowledge that the statement about "a vigorous government with powers equal to the challenges it would face" is an open door to abuse. What I am struggling with here is squaring the language I am reading in The Federalist regarding the governments defense powers (and under the assumption that there are exigencies that could legitimately require a draft) with your statement that such a draft is unconstitutional.
Posted by: carlsonjok | January 25, 2007 4:18 PM
Ed wrote:
"A standing army is hardly the same thing as a conscripted army. And the 13th amendment forbids the draft."
Gotta agree with you in part on that one Ed. But what do you do in an actual national emergency when you start running out of little green men in the standing army?
As for the "involuntary servitude" prohibition; I reckon that could be stretched to include laws requiring mandatory school attendance and showing up for jury duty if you read it loosely enough.
Posted by: Marine Geologist | January 25, 2007 4:18 PM
DaveScot says you're not allowed to have an opinion on the war unless you had some form of military service, but doesn't think non-biologists should shut up about evolution (himself being a non-biologist, he certainly doesn't go this route).
You have to hand it to him, though. His ridiculous statements are at least original. I thought I'd heard every retroactive justification for the war -- that mustard gas counted as a WMD, that paying money to suicide bombers' families counted as connections to terrorism -- but I never heard someone with the cojones to say that war is justified for experience.
Posted by: Matthew | January 25, 2007 4:23 PM
...no government has the legitimate authority to force anyone to serve in the military.
Why not? If all of us enjoy the benefits of ordered liberty under our Constitution, then all of us are equally obligated to defend that order, and help our fellow citizens and restore that order in the wake of emergencies and disasters, whenever the going gets rough and such service becomes necessary. Just like the right to a jury trial means you may have the obligation to serve on a jury.
There's a real difference, both moral and practical, between the slavery referenced in the 13th Amendment, and the obligations that sometimes come with freedom. Conflating the two concepts is just plain ridiculous, and an appalling insult to the very concept of military service. (Do we call our soldiers "slaves?" How do you think they would react if we did? I've never heard any volunteer call himself a "slave." Yes, the conditions of military service are often harsh and undignified, but the conditions of chattel slavery were -- and in some places still are -- worse.)
This does not mean, of course, that we must support this or that specific conscription policy; only that conscription should not be ruled out on such blanket terms. (I, for one, support the idea of conscription with an alternative of civilian service, when the national welfare demands it.)
Posted by: Raging Bee | January 25, 2007 4:34 PM
I fully believe that if the draft were to be reinstated, that Bush would put all of them in harms way as soon as possible.
In which case we would have had a much better chance of preventing the looting, forestalling the insurgency, securing the borders, restoring real order and civil society, minimizing casualties on both sides, and actually accomplishing something good in Iraq.
Posted by: Raging Bee | January 25, 2007 4:42 PM
kehrsam: "However, this is just wages. As pointed out, the CEO makes the majority of his income through stock options and other non-wage compensation. Long-term capital gains are only taxed at a maximum of 15% Federal and 8.25 % NC. No payroll tax required. So for the bulk of his income the CEO is being taxed at 23%. In other words, 10% less than the Average Joe."
Don't assume that stock compensation will only incur long-term capital gains. If the compensation is in the form of incentive stock options, then the difference between the exercise price and the market price at time of exercise will likely incur Alternative Minimum Tax. If the compensation is in the form of nonqualified options or Restricted Stock Units, then they will incur tax as ordinary income based on the value at grant or lapse.
Posted by: Jim Lippard | January 25, 2007 4:52 PM
Uh, Bee. Who was it that once said the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again expecting a different result? Escalation hasn't worked before, it won't now.
Posted by: Martin Wagner | January 25, 2007 4:53 PM
Raging Bee said:
So putting a bunch of completely untrained people into one of the most dangerous situations imaginable would have accomplished this how?
I'd also like it explained to me how me being sent to Iraq for a year or two, quite possibly to my death, would have been of benefit to this country or my four year old daughter.
Posted by: Jason I. | January 25, 2007 4:59 PM
Raging Bee said:
We already do-- by funding it. There's nothing about the definition of "inalienable" that entails signing two years of your life away to the government. Nothing in the Constitution or any other document can justify the government suddenly saying "We've decided that what we're doing for you is worth more than what you're already paying for it. Now if you want things like freedom from having us break in your door in the middle of the night for spurious reasons, freedom from having your newspaper shut down because we don't like the beliefs you espouse, or freedom from having us burn your house down because you're a non-Christian, you must do whatever we say for two years." Rights aren't rights anymore when they are contingent upon involuntary servitude.
Who's talking about volunteers? You recall we're talking about forced service, right?
I don't know of any viable definition of slavery that is dependent upon conditions. Even a pampered slave is still a slave-- it is the element of force, not conditions, which matters.
Posted by: Gretchen | January 25, 2007 5:02 PM
carlsonjok wrote:
The founding fathers fought hugely with each other just over the issue of whether we should have a standing army at all, much less one that conscripted soldiers. There were attempts to institute a draft during the war of 1812 and they were shot down, and opposition to it was led by many of the same people who helped found the nation. Daniel Webster gave a famous speech opposing the draft, which said in part:
I agree with him completely. As for the 13th amendment, I think it is quite clear:
A draft is involuntary servitude. What else could it possibly be when you force someone to serve (that is, work) for the government?
Posted by: Ed Brayton | January 25, 2007 5:11 PM
Raging Bee wrote:
Of course we don't call soldiers slaves because they volunteer to do the job. We don't call workers slaves either, unless they are forced to work against their will and in violation of their liberty. That is clearly what a draft is. The 13th amendment forbids involuntary servitude; what else could a draft possibly be but involuntary servitude?
Posted by: Ed Brayton | January 25, 2007 5:13 PM
Ed -
Just curious, would you say the same about jury duty? If so, how would you recommend levying a competant, objective jury?
Posted by: DuWayne | January 25, 2007 5:34 PM
Yes, I do not believe anyone should be forced to serve on a jury. Or be forced to vote. Or be forced to join the military. And even without the principled arguments for why not, consider the practical ones: those forced to do all of those jobs will tend to do them badly. That's why the military itself strongly opposes the draft, because they know that a volunteer army is a far better one than an army that is drafted.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | January 25, 2007 6:04 PM
I don't have a problem with what Webster or you are saying as philosophical statements. But, I see them as somewhat divorced from practical circumstances.
I've not read much of Webster. But, as a New Englander, his opposition to Madison administration really comes as no surprise. And how much his opposition to conscription was merely suitable to his general opposition to the war is a question that comes up in my mind. Webster figured little in Ralph Ketcham's biography of Madison, which is my sole source for the politics of that war. And his opposition to the War figured not at all.
I guess I have to agree with Raging Bee that there could be circumstances so dire that enforced conscription is necessary to preserve the Republic. Was it not Jefferson that said:
Surely, such situations would be extremely rare. And I will go so far as to state that I would oppose a draft today on the same grounds that you would. But, I can't help but feel your interpretation of the 13th Amendment is over-reaching.
Posted by: carlsonjok | January 25, 2007 6:11 PM
It seems that incidental to O'Brien, the court almost unanimously upheld that the draft was a function allowed under Article I of the constitution. One justice believed otherwise at the time and that was qualified by "in time of war".
Has that changed recently? We're in the global war on terror so even that aspect would seem satisfied.
Posted by: Ted | January 25, 2007 6:12 PM
carlsonjok: I'm not saying conscription is always good (it isn't), or that it's the best way to raise an army (it isn't, from what I hear). I'm merely saying that with our rights come certain obligations, and sometimes, compulsory military service is one of those obligations.
Nothing in the Constitution or any other document can justify the government suddenly saying "We've decided that what we're doing for you is worth more than what you're already paying for it..."
It's not about the worth of what we do for the government; it's about what is necessary at a given time. Most times, the government just needs money and volunteers, so we pay taxes and have an all-volunteer force. Sometimes, however, the government needs more than that, so in those times we either give more, or watch it all go down the drain.
To my eyes, if you forcibly constrict people into labor for a period of time, that's slavery-- even if you pay them.
Then your eyes aren't focused on what slavery really is about. The only way one can equate military service with slavery, is by being completely ignorant of the evils of slavery. I don't have time to describe these evils right now, so I'll just say this: a draftee who survives his tour of duty can look forward to returning to society a full citizen with full rights; a slave has no such hope. In fact, even in time of war, a slave isn't even physically safer than a draftee: his/her family can be broken up at will, he/she can be overworked, sold off, raped, or beaten to death by the owner, with absolute impunity. Furthermore, while the corrupting influences of conscription are significant, the corrupting influences of slavery, on every aspect of the society that condones it, are far, far worse.
The 13th amendment forbids involuntary servitude; what else could a draft possibly be but involuntary servitude?
That Amendment also recognizes that "involuntary servitude" is acceptable as a form of punishment for crimes. Do you equate military service with punishment for crimes? Those who volunteer don't, and no sane officer wants a draftee army full of convicted criminals.
It should be perfectly obvious that American jurists, including those who drafted the 13th Amendment, recognized a difference between chattel slavery (in the service of an owner) and military service (in the service of the country). So did the runaway slaves who joined the Union army to fight against slavery.
Posted by: Raging Bee | January 25, 2007 7:25 PM
Raging Bee wrote:
For crying out loud, Bee. If anything, forced conscription is even worse in this way: you are forced not just to work but to kill or be killed for a cause you may well not believe in. Being forced to go to Vietnam to kill or be killed by a group of people who had nothing to do with you, had done nothing to you or to the country you live, was every bit as morally evil as slavery, in some respects even worse.
*shaking head*. No, I consider FORCED military service to be involuntary servitude. What else could it possibly be? By what possible definition of those two words is conscription not involuntary servitude? You are forced to serve involuntarily. That's pretty much the end of the argument, isn't it? The 13th amendment allows forced labor only as a punishment for crime, and that does not apply to the military draft. That means conscripts are NOT like criminals.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | January 25, 2007 7:37 PM
I'm not sure that selection at random from DMV records is necessarily a great first step toward a competent jury. I've been thinking about this quite a bit the past few days as I just finished reporting for jury duty. We've managed to create what is, by and large, a competent, objective judiciary. Surely there's a way to generate willing juries without grabbing people and cutting their pay to $15 a day (I live in California--we're totally in fat city when it comes to jury wages) and threatening them with jail time for not rescheduling their lives to appear in a courtroom.
I don't mind paying taxes. I don't even foam at the mouth over silly laws that limit me from doing things for what I perceive to be ridiculous reasons (although I do grumble). I'm happy to contribute to the public good in a lot of ways, especially if I'm given options as to how to do it. There's something about being physically compelled to do a particular task at a particular time that rubs me the wrong way. Jury duty is annoying in that respect, but being drafted into military service to follow the orders of buffoons like Bush would be beyond the pale.
I appreciate that such a draft inflicts the real costs of war on an overly hawkish population, but there has to be a better way of doing it than stealing a sizable chunk of a person's life. Perhaps a referendum on non-defensive wars with the voters in favor added to a draft list?
Posted by: Troublesome Frog | January 25, 2007 7:44 PM
Anybody catch Mike Dunford's spelling of "assinine"? I guess DaveScot deserves an extra 's'! Ha!
Posted by: Pablo | January 25, 2007 7:47 PM
I'm sure that the widows of draftees are comforted by the fact that their husbands died with the hope that they'd eventually return home and enjoy freedom and citizenship again.
Posted by: Troublesome Frog | January 25, 2007 7:47 PM
For the record, I am not in favor of compulsory jury duty. The most compelling method that I have heard thus far, is to restrict the pool to registered voters who choose to be added to the pool. The counter to that is that not enough people would volunteer to take part.
Sorry, it is a bit OT, but the discussion about the draft brought it to mind.
Posted by: DuWayne | January 25, 2007 7:57 PM
I don't have time to describe these evils right now, so I'll just say this: a draftee who survives his tour of duty can look forward to returning to society a full citizen with full rights; a slave has no such hope.
Actually, historicly, military service ha been a method by which slaves, bondservants and criminals could attempt to "win" their freedom and citizenship. Citizens being forced to kill or be killed, have effectively been stripped of their rights and put into the same position the slave starts at. For that matter, a person called for jury duty has as well.
And far too many draftees cannot look forward to that. They get to look forward to the trauma of having watched their buddies get slaughtered, of having taken human life, of being wounded, maimed. Of expieriencing the horror and trauma that is war. Many of them will never know freedom, like you or I do, ever again. Bits of their mind, locked on the worse of the horrors they faced.
Bad enough for those who choose to make that sacrifice. Unnacceptable for those who didn't choose it.
And for those who seem to think this would acually affect the elites. Are you honestly naive enough to think that a draft would? Seriously? Or that it would influence the American people - the same American people who are already behind getting out of Iraq.
The draft would do nothing but give bush more cannon fodder, with which to invade Iran.
Posted by: DuWayne | January 25, 2007 8:13 PM
Ed wrote:
Here is a great link from Findlaw that discusses the 13th with regards to military draft and involuntary servitude:
http://supreme.lp.findlaw.com/constitution/amendment13/03.html
Here's a quote:
It also lists the applicable court cases that shows why the 13th is interpretted the way it is.
Posted by: doctorgoo | January 25, 2007 8:35 PM
I know the courts have never ruled the way I think they should. That only means they're wrong.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | January 25, 2007 9:06 PM
Being forced to go to Vietnam to kill or be killed by a group of people who had nothing to do with you, had done nothing to you or to the country you live, was every bit as morally evil as slavery, in some respects even worse.
What the conscripts are required to do, is a separate issue from the morality of conscription. (Also, "compulsory service" to one's country need not necessarily be military in nature.)
I'm sure that the widows of draftees are comforted by the fact that their husbands died with the hope that they'd eventually return home and enjoy freedom and citizenship again.
I'm guessing that's more comfort than the widow of a slave (who, in all likelihood, is also a slave) would get.
Surely there's a way to generate willing juries without grabbing people and cutting their pay to $15 a day (I live in California--we're totally in fat city when it comes to jury wages) and threatening them with jail time for not rescheduling their lives to appear in a courtroom.
The reasoning, I believe, is that if people are allowed to volunteer for juries, we'll get a class of "career jurors," who volunteer for reasons that may not be consistent with justice -- i.e., people looking for opportunities to lock up alleged bad guys, or who have some other axe to grind. (Another example might be religious zealots looking to punish "sin.") That would, to put it mildly, not be a "jury of one's peers."
Citizens being forced to kill or be killed, have effectively been stripped of their rights and put into the same position the slave starts at. For that matter, a person called for jury duty has as well.
So now we're conflating chattel slavery, compulsory service, AND jury duty? That's just beyond ridiculous.
Posted by: Raging Bee | January 25, 2007 9:57 PM
Raging Bee wrote:
Nonsense. It is obviously far worse to be forced to kill someone, or be killed by someone, against your will than to be forced to, say, watch a TV show against your will. They're both wrong, but one is far more wrong. The bottom line is that the government does not own me any more than the slaveowners owned the slaves, in a moral sense. They have no legitimate authority to force me to kill against my will any more than a slaveowner had the legitimate authority to make someone work against their will.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | January 25, 2007 10:02 PM
Ed wrote:
You've stated why you think the 13th should be interpretted based on a strict reading of it, in that a draft is an obvious example of "involuntary servitude". And quite frankly, what you said made a lot of sense to me. But I (like you and everyone else) know the courts don't agree with that at all.
So when I pointed out the particular applicable cases, I guess I was hoping for a bit more discussion of the particulars on these cases other than just "they're wrong".
Posted by: doctorgoo | January 25, 2007 11:17 PM
Raging Bee -
So now we're conflating chattel slavery, compulsory service, AND jury duty? That's just beyond ridiculous.
Not at all ridiculous. The only reason that I do not come out stronger against compulsory jury duty, is that I don'tt necessarily think that there would be a large enough jury pool. But the running theme in all of these is that they are compulsory service. You can be imprisoned for your decision not to participate, if you are any of the above. In some circumstances, you could be executed. That is slavery, no matter how you try to parse it.
I am all in favor of people serving their country. I wish that we did a better job of encouraging people to volunteer through Americorp and similar programs. I also wish we did a better job of taking care of our veterans, so that more people might be inclined to join the military.
But compelling people to join the military, is not the answer. It has no benifits, that come close to outweighing the negatives. And the notion that one can seperate the moral arguments about what the enslaved is being forced to do, from this aspect of the argument is absurd. That is why, while I am against compulsory jury duty, I am not very firm about it. Because, first, we are not talking about a life threatening duty. And the question of how to fill the jury pool, with reasonable jurors, without force, has not been answered to my satisfaction. But I am dead against a draft because of the moral implications of the duty a person is required to perform, not to mention the personal risk involved.
Posted by: DuWayne | January 25, 2007 11:40 PM
But compelling people to join the military, is not the answer...
I never said it was THE answer. I merely said it might, in some circumstances, be the best or only viable option; in which case we should not waste time comparing it to chattel slavery, which is NEVER justifiable.
But the running theme in all of these is that they are compulsory service. You can be imprisoned for your decision not to participate, if you are any of the above. In some circumstances, you could be executed. That is slavery, no matter how you try to parse it.
"Slavery" is a very strong word, with specific meaning and moral baggage. We need strong words, and we need them to stay strong. Stretching such a strong word so far beyond its original meaning, to cover so many things that simply aren't the same, is just plain wrong and serves no useful purpose. I've read enough about slavery -- the kind we had in the US -- to know that it was simply too evil to compare to either the draft or jury duty.
This is really starting to sound like a spoiled child crying about "slavery" whenever he is asked to clean up his room, take out the trash, or help in the kitchen. Been there, done that, grew up.
PS: I served in a Federal jury, dealing with two small-time drug cases and a small-time civil suit. My mother also did jury time -- her jusy was sequestered for a night because they couldn't reach a verdict sooner. Yes, it was inconvenient. So what?! Next time you want to bitch about the inconvenience of compulsory jury duty, think of the inconvenience of being a defendant, who may or may not be guilty: he NEEDS a fair trial -- that's not a luxury, and he can't exactly wait for your convenience. Not to mention the victims of the crime he's accused of committing.
Posted by: Raging Bee | January 26, 2007 12:02 AM
Raging Bee -
I never said it was THE answer. I merely said it might, in some circumstances, be the best or only viable option; in which case we should not waste time comparing it to chattel slavery, which is NEVER justifiable.
I am arguing that enslaving one in the military is never justifiable.
"Slavery" is a very strong word, with specific meaning and moral baggage. We need strong words, and we need them to stay strong.
I am using the word slavery, precisely because it is such a strong word, with specific meaning and the accompanying moral baggage.
Stretching such a strong word so far beyond its original meaning, to cover so many things that simply aren't the same, is just plain wrong and serves no useful purpose.
You have said nothing to show they are not the same. Reapeatedly claiming they are not, does not make it so. How is it different?
This is really starting to sound like a spoiled child crying about "slavery" whenever he is asked to clean up his room, take out the trash, or help in the kitchen. Been there, done that, grew up.
No, being forced to kill or be killed is not anything like making a child contribute to the household chores. If you think they are the same, then I question your judgement. I do not believe it is right to invade or occupy another country. I have moral objections to the war our nation is currently engaged in, and nearly every war our nation has fought.
I am not a pascifist, if our nation were invaded, or if we were actually going to prevent a genocide, I would become one of the proud, the few. But outside of some very narrow parameters, I have absolute moral objections to war. I also have moral objections to becoming what war would likely make me. That is a sacrifice that I am only willing to make within those narrow parameters. To be forced to kill other human beings, would be to sacrifice a signifigant part of who I am, never mind the physical risks. I believe that it is absolutely immoral to force that on anyone. Chattel slavery would be preferable to that. At least there, no one is threatening to kill you, if you don't rush out to kill or be killed.
Yes, it was inconvenient. So what?! Next time you want to bitch about the inconvenience of compulsory jury duty, think of the inconvenience of being a defendant, who may or may not be guilty: he NEEDS a fair trial -- that's not a luxury, and he can't exactly wait for your convenience. Not to mention the victims of the crime he's accused of committing.
My bitch with it has nothing to do with the inconvienience. If given the choice, I would check the box that volunteers me for the jury pool. I am a firm believer in doing my civic duty. My bitch has to do with the principle of it. And the practical issues that Ed mentions. People who are forced to do it, against their will or with hardship at home, are not going to be responsible, reasonable jurors.
Using your own comparison of the petulant child. Do you really want the whiny brat, who would rather be elswhere, sitting on the jury at your trial, for a crime you didn't commit?
Posted by: DuWayne | January 26, 2007 12:28 AM
These ID, DI, whatever... guys are bloody idiots. First, to qualify for their moronic BS, I served, Navy, 7 years active and reserve Navy, 2 years army ROTC in college. Cold war ended, so I didn't see much point in contracting for a commission, I had a near-wife (became wife), and didn't see a real drive because with the USSR becoming Russia ... who was I really protecting us from?
For Dave-snot, I didn't serve in combat, which I personally don't regret, but I did lose friends on the Stark. Sad thing is, for some reason, I can't remember their names, but I remember their faces, which is really f'n chilling.
Dave Scott does the standard BS, "the rich don't make that much, and pay too much in taxes," anyone with the quarter to pay for a clue, knows that that is total crap, but GOP psychophants like him, love the party line. Fact is, Bush policies have crushed the middle class, median incomes have dropped more than $5000 in the last five years. Taxes for the ultra wealthy have dropped. Bonuses, benefits, stock options for CEOs have become disgusting, but to him, it's no biggie.
That is the standard, "I hope, if I suck up to them long enough, I'll become rich like them," mentality of the average GOP lackey.
ED, I have to disagree. Taxes have to be paid.
1) If we want a future, we have to pay for education. Look at the states that are successful in public education, they are, across the board, tops in funding. Interestingly enough, they also tend to be Democratic, but... that's a coincidence ... ;o)
2) We can't "lower taxes across the board" WE have a deficit of $ 8 , 6 8 1 , 7 7 3 , 2 1 5 , 7 8 5 . 0 4 , we cannot lower taxes until we have established a way to pay this off.
3) We have gross inequities based upon the policies of the Bush administration and their cronies. WE cannot "lower taxes across the board" until we have answered the issues of heath care, multigenerational poverty, etc. Sorry, in my opinion, yes, there needs to be redistribution of the wealth. If the average American, 40k and below, had more buying power, IE lower taxes, health care, etc., our economy would be bolstered by their increased ability to purchase. I'm not talking phony purchases, debt based, but real, fiscally responsible purchases.
Posted by: dogmeatIB | January 26, 2007 12:49 AM
dogmeat wrote:
I don't believe I said anything contrary to that.
Virtually none of which is funded by the Federal government.
Certainly true, but I never suggested otherwise. We cannot cute those taxes until we cut the Federal budget about in half and then pay down the debt; it's a long term project. Hell, let's be honest - it's a non-existent project because neither party has the slightest interest in doing anything like I suggest. But yes, step one is getting into the black by slashing spending. Step two is paying down the accumulated debt. Then step three would be cutting taxes across the board.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | January 26, 2007 1:12 AM
I'd probably go with simplyfying the tax code before cutting taxes. A fiscally neutral simplification could be developed which replaces the entire godawful mess that is the US tax code with a simple "everyone pays x% of their income" statement (or a progressive tax if you insist), where x is selected to hold tax revenue constant.
Then you go through all federal government activity and ask three simple questions:
1) What is this programme designed to achieve?
2) Is it adding value?
3) Can some or all of the money be spent better elsewhere? (including returning it to its rightful owners).
That is policy analysis 101, but I'll bet noone's asked those questions about 98% of what government does. I suspect you could cut federal spendign in half without materally affecting government services (at least the useful ones).
Posted by: James | January 26, 2007 5:24 AM
I am arguing that enslaving one in the military is never justifiable.
Fine. But is it really impossible for you to make that point without equating it with some other wrong that is visibly different? We can all agree that slavery, rape and murder are wrong, each in its own way, without pretending there's no difference between them, and without treating those labels as interchangeable. Such word-play cheapens the entire dialogue: if "jury duty is a form of slavery," for example, then slavery must not be that bad.
These word-games remind me of campus "feminists" who wanted to treat certain forms of consensual sex as "rape." They also remind me of the wingnut right comparing the Terri Schiavo case to the Nazi Holocaust.
Chattel slavery would be preferable to that.
In your opinion. Not in mine. I might give up my rights, safety, dignity and life for a national cause, even a lame one, but not for the pleasure or profit of some halfwit landowner, and certainly not for the rest of my life and the lives of any kids I might have while in bondage.
People who are forced to do it, against their will or with hardship at home, are not going to be responsible, reasonable jurors.
On the whole, our court system works fairly well -- there are few other countries in which I would rather be tried, and IIRC those all have juries of some sort too. Also, the juries on which my mother and I served did a decent job of trying their cases. (As I indicated before, my mother's jury were sequestered, precisely because they knew the importance of their job, and took the time to do it right.) None of the jurors wanted to be there, but we all understood the stakes and did our duty as best we could. Yes, there are stupid jurors, but requiring juries to be drawn from a "panel fo experts" defeats the whole purpose of jury trials.
Besides, if you REALLY want, or need, to be excluded from jury duty, there are ways to get out of it. People can be excluded for hardship reasons, obvious nutjobs and imbeciles tend to get stricken, and you can always try to answer the judge's questions in such a way as to make yourself undesirable to one or the other party.
Posted by: Raging Bee | January 26, 2007 8:38 AM
As someone who came of age during Vietnam I can attest that being draftable focuses one on politics and foreign affairs in a way that I doubt today's 18 year olds do. I was talking to the son of a friend back in the beginning of the Iraq War who was bemoaning the political apathy of his peers. I suggested that instituting a draft would end that apathy very quickly.
DuWayne:
Juries are supposed to be of one's peers. It's not just the numbers that are important but that they be representative of the community.Posted by: Alan B. | January 26, 2007 9:24 AM
Alan B. -
Juries are supposed to be of one's peers. It's not just the numbers that are important but that they be representative of the community.
Do you honestly think that no one from certain communities would volunteer? I can't imagine that there is a community anywhere in this country, where everyone is that lacking in civic responsability. When I say that there would not be a large enough pool, I am talking about those in individual communities.
Posted by: DuWayne | January 26, 2007 11:07 AM
Raging Bee -
Fine. But is it really impossible for you to make that point without equating it with some other wrong that is visibly different?
I am not equating it with some other wrong that is visibly different. I am not equating it to murder or rape, which are entirely different. I am equating it with slavery, which is not.
On the whole, our court system works fairly well -- there are few other countries in which I would rather be tried, and IIRC those all have juries of some sort too. Also, the juries on which my mother and I served did a decent job of trying their cases.
I never said it wasn't. I am saying that it is not right to force someone, on pain of imprisonment, to sit on a jury.
(As I indicated before, my mother's jury were sequestered, precisely because they knew the importance of their job, and took the time to do it right.)
No, your mother's jury was sequestered because the lawyers wanted them to be.
None of the jurors wanted to be there, but we all understood the stakes and did our duty as best we could.
As I am sure most jurors do, your point?
Yes, there are stupid jurors, but requiring juries to be drawn from a "panel fo experts" defeats the whole purpose of jury trials.
It is pointless to debate you, if you are going to put words or ideas in my mouth that just aren't there. I have said nothing about panels of experts, nor has anyone else in this thread.
Besides, if you REALLY want, or need, to be excluded from jury duty, there are ways to get out of it. People can be excluded for hardship reasons, obvious nutjobs and imbeciles tend to get stricken, and you can always try to answer the judge's questions in such a way as to make yourself undesirable to one or the other party.
Hardship reasons are very limited, depending on the jurisdiction. Many nutjobs can get onto juries anyways. And a lot of people find it entirely unethical to lie, even to avoid things that they do not wish to do. That you would advocate doing such, says a lot.
To repeat myself, I do not know the best solution. There are some who argue that plenty of people would volunteer to be in the pool, but I'm not sure I buy it. That does not change the fact that forcing people to participate, is wrong.
Posted by: DuWayne | January 26, 2007 12:00 PM
I am equating [compulsory military service] with slavery, which is not [visibly different].
The two are visibly different to anyone who has actually studied history. You should try it sometime.
No, your mother's jury was sequestered because the lawyers wanted them to be.
They were sequestered because they could not reach a verdict by the end of the day. My point was that they made the extra sacrifice of their time to get the job done right, even though they didn't want to be there at all. Your diversion is pointless.
That does not change the fact that forcing people to participate, is wrong.
Whan a crime is committed, or a dispute arises, we, as a society, are forced to respond to it, and make some sort of judgement, whether we want to or not. Forcing people to serve in juries is merely a consequence of such necessity. Our right to a jury trial means that society is obligated to find a jury to try us when necessary. It is not conditional on finding jurors who want to serve.
And what about public defenders? The right to an attourney means some lawyer has to represent a given defendant, whether or not he/she wants to. Is that wrong too?
Posted by: Raging Bee | January 26, 2007 12:31 PM
Raging Bee said:
They didn't have a choice in the matter. They didn't decide to be sequestered, someone else decided it for them. And if they had refused, they could very well have been held in contempt of court, and faced fines and / or jail time.
That is what a public defender is paid to do. That public defender made the choice to do that job, with the full knowledge that he/she may face such a situation. Entirely different concept from being forced to do something without ever saying "Yeah, I'd like to do that".
My personal experience with jury duty was frustrating at best, but could have been a lot worse. I received a jury duty notice when I was still a contractor. My company did not pay for days off due to jury duty. I attempted to get out of it via hardship, since any more than 2 or 3 days, and I wouldn't have been able to pay my bills. I was told that wasn't a good enough reason. Thankfully, I sat around all day, and was dismissed at the end of the day. I missed a day's pay, but I could've ended up not being able to pay my rent. Forcing people into that kind of situation is utterly ridiculous.
Posted by: Jason I. | January 26, 2007 12:57 PM
DuWayne:
Mostly what you would get is retired people and the unemployed, unless you raised the compensation, in which case you might also get the working poor. I don't see that as being representative of a community. I personally don't know of a single professional person who would voluntarily take time off from work if others were willing to serve in his place. Maybe your community is different.Posted by: Alan B. | January 26, 2007 1:00 PM
Raging one -
The two are visibly different to anyone who has actually studied history. You should try it sometime.
I have, many time periods, many cultures. As have a lot of people who make the same equation that I do. The fact that you disagree, does not make my opinion any less valid. Just as my disagreement doesn't make your opinion any less valid. But if you are going to make unfounded, idiotic statements like this, this is going to be the end of our discussion.
They were sequestered because they could not reach a verdict by the end of the day. My point was that they made the extra sacrifice of their time to get the job done right, even though they didn't want to be there at all. Your diversion is pointless.
And my point was that they didn't have a choice. It is not a diversion, it is a fact. Claiming they agreed to be sequestered, out of civic duty, is just sentimental bullshit and untrue.
Whan a crime is committed, or a dispute arises, we, as a society, are forced to respond to it, and make some sort of judgement, whether we want to or not. Forcing people to serve in juries is merely a consequence of such necessity. Our right to a jury trial means that society is obligated to find a jury to try us when necessary. It is not conditional on finding jurors who want to serve.
Like I have said repeatedly, I do not have the answer for making it right. Therefor I have not said that we must stop forcing people to serve. But that does not change the fact that the status quo is wrong. Even while we continue to force people to serve, we should be looking for solutions to the problem. Just because something is, doesn't mean it has to stay that way.
Infringements on our liberty are still infringements, regardless of how benevolent or even necessary they are. I do not have freedom, something my constitution guarentees me, if someone can force me to go and kill and/or be killed. I don't even have it if someone threatens to put me in jail for not showing up for jury duty. The fact that I am more than willing to volunteer for the jury pool, does not make being forced to, any less a restriction on my freedom.
Posted by: DuWayne | January 26, 2007 1:04 PM
Absolutely agree with Alan B, that there would be professional juries out there. And why not, there are professional criminals, professional lawyers, professional cops, professional judges. The only ones out of their water are the citizen rubes that attend these things.
How bad can that be?
But seriously, I've been on jury duty four times for relatively major cases. And some lasted more than a day - no celebrity stuff, but I don't ever recall anyone in my groups talking about becoming destitute over it.
I am sort of curious that those most vociferous about protecting freedoms appear to be only several jury days away from living under a bridge. To many, the enforced jury system causes undue hardships, as would apparently, compulsory military service. And yet, the alternative to the jury system doesn't seem that hot -- it's just something that we prefer someone else do -- like the military service.
Rangel's draft posturing is simply to keep our military from being used as some cheap foreign policy tool. He doesn't want our standing army to become mercenary (where people only view it as a profession), and he doesn't want a blurring to occur between the standing army and civilian contractors. The logic of draftees is easy for most people that have served in the military. The draft DOES NOT enable the government to use the military gratuitously, it does the opposite, because most Americans would view sending and indentured person to war as wrong unless the situation unquestionably warranted it. That's why WWII draft worked, Korea, not so much, Vietnam, not so much.
Because we don't have sufficient professional people right now, we have highly strained soldiers on their 3rd-4th tours being augmented by 100K mercenaries in Iraq, that are also being funded by the US treasury and the taxpayer.
The leakage is tremendous.
Posted by: Ted | January 26, 2007 1:46 PM
I don't have time to describe these evils right now, so I'll just say this: a draftee who survives his tour of duty can look forward to returning to society a full citizen with full rights; a slave has no such hope.
True if you are talking about slavery as it was practiced in the US before the Civil War, but not generally true. Slavery was common in Rome, but slaves could look forward to purchasing their freedom from their owners.
Posted by: Phillip J. Birmingham | January 26, 2007 3:17 PM
A lot of countries have a draft, and I see nothing wrong with it, keeping in mind that draftees generally are involved in support positions and career soldiers are the ones doing the fighting. The government compels you get an education, serve on a jury to judge your peers, it can put you in jail if your a danger to the society and it should be able to draft you to help protect your society. Quite frankly I think miltary service makes better citizens who would actually show up to a ballot box.
Obviously this is the wrong time to try to institute a draft in America, but had one always been in place, do you really think we'd put up with someone who ignores top ranked military advisors and that we'd still be in the mess we're in right now; A war we shouldn't have started, shouldn't back down from, and one we're have little if any hope of winning?
Posted by: Drekab | January 26, 2007 7:28 PM
But if we did have the draft now, countless young men and women would be in a position, against their will, to kill or be killed at the behest of such advisors in a war we shouldn't have started and have little hope of winning. What right does anyone have to put another person in such a position?
You seem to assume that the draft is okay when we're fighting the "right" war. But who is supposed to ensure that the war is "right," and who has the right to tell the people supposed to kill and die in it that if they should happen to disagree?
Posted by: Gretchen | January 26, 2007 7:48 PM
Sorry Ed, the part where you said:
"I'm all for lowering taxes across the board"
Strangely gave me the idea that you were ... perhaps, just maybe, in favor of lowering taxes across the board?
That gave me the impression that you might be an anti-tax libertarian, which, I may be wrong in your case, is generally a rather selfish and short sighted approach to government.
Personally I think, as a nation, we may be better off with more responsible federal involvement in education. Note, I said responsible. We have serious discrepancies in funding, teacher quality, standards, curriculum, etc. Look at NYC vs the state of NY (not the actual case, the conflict), Milwaukee vs Wisconsin, E. St. Louis vs IL, you have some serious issues with unbalanced funding facilitating multigenerational poverty and defacto segregation. The federal government had to step in with desegregation, they may have to do so with the gross inequities in public education. And again, I'm talking about responsible intervention, not political hacks slapping band-aids on a sucking chest wound in an effort to win votes during an election cycle or un-funded and underfunded mandates that actually take money away from instruction in favor of high stakes "accountability" tests that any educator who knows their arse from a whole in the ground will tell you are rather dubious in their ability to access actual knowledge and learning.
Personally I believe some sort of mandatory service to the country should be put into place, but overall I have mixed feelings about it. On the one hand, mandatory service to one's country, with no exceptions and options in non-military service, would be a benefit to our country, but there are numerous problems. In general, historically, conscript armies aren't as effective as volunteer, professional armies. Note "not as effective" in a military sense = dead people. Also, in the United States, the draft has had some serious class issues as the wealthy have been generally able to avoid service and it becomes "a rich man's war but a poor man's fight." Finally, you have the incredible expense created by a service system. These people have to be trained, paid, etc., plus they generally become eligible for post service benefits, education, medical, etc., all of which are paid through taxes when we already have a massive deficit.
Posted by: dogmeatIB | January 26, 2007 7:58 PM
Well, that's exactly it. You seem to assume that people react to using the conscripted army in the same way as the mercenary army.
That is not correct. A conscripted army is full of malcontents that would rather be elsewhere, many of whom have no interest whatsoever in killing someone at someone else's whim and bequest. What are you going to do to them to improve their attitude? Kick them out?
These malcontents have families that would speak up pretty quick if their kid was being set up to fight in the streets of Tehran. Preemptive wars being fought with conscripted troops would look a lot different.
You have no such thing in a volunteer army. They are used at the whim of politicians under the guise of humanitarianism or some flimsy pretext, and the congress likewise has no constituency to answer to because of volunteerism - hell, they signed up for it, what's to complain about. A bit of combat is good for promotion.
There is a real advantage to having unwilling fuckups in the services; it keeps the generals and politicians from being froggy.
Posted by: Ted | January 26, 2007 8:45 PM
FYI... Here's what Ed had to say about the draft (and a bit on jury duty) when he posted about it soon before the 2004 Presidential election:
http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2004/10/the_draft.php#comment-154801
Posted by: doctorgoo | January 26, 2007 8:53 PM
Ted, I'm sorry but I don't know what on earth you're talking about. I am operating on the assumption that the government will engage in wars which young men and women will be opposed to for a variety of reasons which you may consider justified or unjustified, but inevitably at least one which you consider the objections to be definitely unjustified, because governments inevitably screw up. And that in no case should these men and women be forced to kill or die for a cause they don't believe in.
Posted by: Gretchen | January 26, 2007 8:54 PM
You seem to assume that the draft is okay when we're fighting the "right" war.
I assume nothing of the kind. I simply recognise that instituting a draft in middle of an armed conflict because we need more bodies would be unfair as opposed to instituting it during peacetime because its the right thing to do. Once your in the military you go where your told, and fight the battle you find there, that's what the military is.
As for who decides a war is "right", last I checked, this was a democracy. If we are in a wrong war then something has very seriously gone wrong. If this is a wrong war, where are the riots, where is the civil disobedience. Oh, thats right, that only happens where there's a draft on. Because when your own life isn't at risk, this is all just an intellectual debate and people settle for blog posts, editorials, and will just wait for another election to roll around. Who cares that the only people risking their lives don't really believe in anything, they just couldn't afford college on their own because they were poor because their parents were poor because their great grandparents were slaves (real slaves, not jury members) and now they're stuck in the middle of hell.
Posted by: Drekab | January 26, 2007 9:11 PM
drgoo:
The definition of government in that post you reference is very loose. *I* assume that the government is the people and not some separate entity -- you know, a government, of the people, for the people, by the people...all that jazz. I'm not giving up on that and thinking that the government is some zombie Stalin, resurrected trying to bugger me. Which is why I'd be in the camp of those that think outsourcing the military is bad for America because it detaches interest.
Posted by: Ted | January 26, 2007 9:25 PM
Perhaps they aren't happening because people are afraid of being killed by the police? What is your point? You're making an argument against the draft. And if you think that popular opinion supports the war, you're fooling yourself. People just don't think they can do anything about it...and they're right.
Right, and nobody should be forced into such a situation against their will. I wouldn't even say that anybody should volunteer to be in such a situation. Governments made stupid decisions, as we have seen, about where to send their military and what to tell it to do. Nobody should volunteer to be at the beck and call of such institutions, and certainly nobody should be forced into it.
Posted by: Gretchen | January 26, 2007 9:32 PM
Give me a break people. We had a draft and still went into Korea. We had a draft and still went into Vietnam. Neither war was popular, a lot of Americans, including plenty of those who were drafted, died in those conflicts. You live in fantasy land, if you think that a draft would have prevented this war - or would end it if implemented today.
When those in power, wish to have a war, they get their damned war - that's how we got into Iraq in the first place. It might have had a few more people against the war, but it would not have begun to stop it - not with the lies being spewed from our executive.
All that a draft would accompliush, could accomplish, is to send lambs to the slaughter.
Posted by: DuWayne | January 26, 2007 9:58 PM
While wiping his comment was certainly cowardly and stupid and par for the course, I' not sure how it could be accurately construed as polite.
"After all, it does contain passages like: "A lot of people have said a lot of really thoughtless and asinine things about the Iraq war, but that one just takes the cake. It's dumb so many different ways that it's really, really hard to figure out where to start."
and
"So try using your own head, would you?"
I'm just sayin is all..."
All things considered, I'm thinking maybe he was a little too kind.
Posted by: Mark C | January 27, 2007 1:23 AM
Give me a break people. We had a draft and still went into Korea. We had a draft and still went into Vietnam. Neither war was popular, a lot of Americans, including plenty of those who were drafted, died in those conflicts. You live in fantasy land, if you think that a draft would have prevented this war - or would end it if implemented today
Posted by: azdırıcı | May 16, 2009 8:53 AM