Rep. Charlie Rangal (D-NY), head of Ways and Means in the 110th Congress, offered (again) to initiate a National Draft for the Armed forces. However, let's take Speaker-to-be Pelosi's district and see how receptive they are to such an idea.
2004: Prop. I passes, thus dis-allowing the military to recruit from Public Schools and Universities.
2006: San Francisco dis-invites the famed USS Iowa from docking there. Also, they do not want the public schools to offer JROTC either.
If San Francisco, city of high rents and high culture doesn't want any military to be there. At all. The question becomes, if as a city of the United States, they will take the monetary benefits without the military proposals. Standing on idealism is fine, it's a political town. "Dissent is etc" but what is their duty to the United States?
If their duty is to oppose every GOP President and Congress, then is dissent allowed against Democrats in San Francisco? I think not. Hell, the San Francisco Board of Supervisors want regulate Blogs.
My question to the left side of the Blogosphere is: What does San Francisco owe the US if it won't join in support of our National welfare? What does the US owe San Francisco if the anti-military trend continues?