Great article in the NYT about how detached many of our soldiers are from politics on the home front. As the article notes, this in part reflects the military’s cultural taboo about participation in politics, but I think it’s also indicative of a general lack of political knowledge/interest in politics among the families and people from whom the lower echelons of our army are typically drawn. Not to be all John Kerry-esque, but how many more people care more about Brittany’s divorce than Rummy’s resignation?
Moving on …
The article also got me thinking about our Constitution’s Third Amendment, which I honestly hadn’t thought about since my high school civics classes. Consider:
Hashim al-Menti smiled wanly at the marine sergeant beside him on his couch. The sergeant had appeared in the darkness on Wednesday night, knocking on the door of Mr. Menti’s home.
When Mr. Menti answered, a squad of infantrymen swiftly moved in, making him an involuntary host.
Since then marines had been on his roof with rifles, watching roads where insurgents often planted bombs.
And here’s the Third Amendment:
No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.
Imagine if troops just showed up at your door and made themselves at home. Imagine if those troops had cost you — like the Mr. Menti cited in the article — your country and your son. How would you react? Maybe like the Founding Fathers — by rebelling against the occupiers and incorporating a provision in your founding document to prevent the uninvited quartering of soldiers in the future.
Anyway, apparently, I’m not alone in not really thinking much about the Third Amendment. According to Wiki:
The Third Amendment is among the least cited sections of the U.S. Constitution, having been addressed only once by a Federal court.
So there’s your “did you know” for the day. Read that NYT article about the Marines … I find it fascinating in an “end of days” sort of way.
Now Playing: Episode 366
Obama staffs up, Detroit comes to DC and finally, Iraq and the US come to a security agreement.
Links Mentioned: Iraq SOFA … pros and cons of a bailout.
In regards to military foks you ask: “How many more people care more about Brittany’s divorce than Rummy’s resignation?
I would say a larger percentage of military compared to America at large, but just a slight drop and about as much as corporate soliders care about their CEOs being replaced.
Rummy news - Political junkies, and the press care, with some military.
CEO news - Wall street, the biz press, and some employees.
Yeah, good point. I’m lucky enough to work in a business that gives me an ownership stake, so I tend to have strong opinions about my CEOs, as well, but the point is well taken.
And, just to clarify, my point is not that the military per se shows more interest in pop culture than in politics, but rather that a whole American demographic does, and that the military tends to be from that demographic. Think you get me here, but I do have a ton of respect for our soldiers, much as I wish they weren’t currently being called on by bad leadership to do it.
Finally, I think there’s also a teleological question here about the nature of “knowledge” itself. As my girlfriend is fond of pointing out, I implicitly assume that knowledge of politics and current affairs is “superior” to knowledge of pop culture. It’s the standard conceit of the educated classes, I guess, if an unfortunate one. I find this question very interesting … among other things, the kind of knowledge a personal tends to acquire in his/her life is a sort of aspirational reflection … I care about Rummy because some part of me, however small or misguided, wants his job. And to get his job, I have to understand things about the person currently holding the job, and the circumstances surrounding him/her.
Anyway, thanks for the comment.