Republicans & Conservatives: Archives

Could not have said that better myself. Well done Jack. JFK would be rolling over in his grave if he knew what was going on in his party and would be embarrassed by his younger brother.

Posted by: Jay at November 25, 2005 12:33 PM

Jack,

I agree with you 100%. These people do not realize that the purpose of the military recruitment is so they can continue living free while the men and women in our armed forces protect their butts.

If it wasn’t for the brave American military forces who have sacrificed their lives for over 200 years, these liberals would never have had the opportunity to have that vote.

There are traitors in our midst and now we know who they are.

Posted by: Ed Ciesla at November 25, 2005 12:37 PM

Jack,

I agree with you 100%. These people do not realize that the purpose of the military recruitment is so they can continue living free while the men and women in our armed forces protect their butts.

If it wasn’t for the brave American military forces who have sacrificed their lives for over 200 years, these liberals would never have had the opportunity to have that vote.

There are traitors in our midst and now we know who they are.

Posted by: Ed Ciesla at November 25, 2005 12:38 PM

I totally agree with bill o’riely. Terriots should blow up those libreals scum. san fransisco is a bunch of gay loving liberals who hate america and the best president ever. Dont the libreals know he is fighing terriots in other countries before they invade us here and kill americans? Why dont’t san fransisco libreals support the troops like consertatives? They just know that since 70% of people who live in san fransisco are gay they cant join the army or navy and dont want the rest of us to find out! we dont want a bunch of gay homo san fansisco army soliders in Iraq casue then the terriorists woulnd’t be scared of us like they are now. maybe if the terriorts dont blow up sanfransisco we should do the rest of us a favor and nuke it, and then nuke fallujia to!

Posted by: troop suporter at November 25, 2005 01:11 PM

You guys should just get a room.

Posted by: Rocky at November 25, 2005 01:15 PM

Jack,

Seriously, being an American is also about doing what you think is right, even though you may be ostracized for you opinion.

Is San Francisco actually preventing recruits from joining the military?

No? Then what exactly is your point?

Posted by: Rocky at November 25, 2005 01:31 PM

Rocky

They can do what they want. I can point out that they are wrong. That is America too.

Disgusting, however, is the mendacity of the whole thing. SF will not be ostracized. They will be lauded, defended, praised and honored for taking a “hard stand”. They are doing nothing honorable or hard. They can stand on their hind legs and howl all they want, but in the end they are taking a PC course that gets them lots of benefits at cost only to others.

No SF is not preventing recruiting. That would take moral courage they don’t have and would risk the loss of Federal dollars. No, the brave 60% of SF has just decided to take a brave stand that risks nothing. I criticize their mendacity of their radical chic.

They can all sip their expensive wines in the Che Guevara t-shirts while decrying the vitriol poured upon them by “right wing” critics, who point out the inconsistencies and dishonesty of risk free - even profitable - protest.

Posted by: Jack at November 25, 2005 01:56 PM

Jack,

“They can do what they want. I can point out that they are wrong. That is America too.”

That is exactly the point.

Whether they get raked over the coals for their actions or not, they have their right to their dissent.
What is wrong, is to make it personal and as insulting as some of the other comments on this thread have made it.

Posted by: Rocky at November 25, 2005 02:08 PM

“I totally agree with bill o’riely. Terriots should blow up those libreals scum. san fransisco is a bunch of gay loving liberals who hate america and the best president ever. Dont the libreals know he is fighing terriots in other countries before they invade us here and kill americans? Why dont’t san fransisco libreals support the troops like consertatives? They just know that since 70% of people who live in san fransisco are gay they cant join the army or navy and dont want the rest of us to find out! we dont want a bunch of gay homo san fansisco army soliders in Iraq casue then the terriorists woulnd’t be scared of us like they are now. maybe if the terriorts dont blow up sanfransisco we should do the rest of us a favor and nuke it, and then nuke fallujia to!”

Wow, that really contributed a whole lot to the discussion. Plenty of original thoughts…

Jack,

Your post points out one extreme example that does not reflect the feelings of the vast majority of the public. There’ an extreme faction on the Right, too, that honestly believes Americans should never open their mouths in dissent during wartime. Both stances are somewhat extreme, and bringing them up does nothing to further the legitimate debate.

Why not pose a more thoughtful question to the forum, like: What is the most responsible way to voice dissent during wartime? Now that is an interesting question for which I’d love to see people from both sides offer an answer or solution.

Posted by: Andrew L. at November 25, 2005 02:09 PM

Andrew L

Because it is less fun AND we can learn the most and be most useful by exploring boundary conditions.

The 60% of SF exercised a right and I acknowledge it. They also made asses out of themselves. I acknowledge that too. What I want to lay down a marker is on the cost of dissent, or in this case the lack of it. SF wants to pretend it did something courageous. It did not.

What we have in SF is a bunch of privileged people trying to assert their moral superiority by doing something that has no cost to them, will have no effect on policies, but will be offensive to the people who make their privileged lives secure. We should not grant them the moral superiority they so needfully crave. And make no mistake, it is ours to grant or withhold. In fact, they deserve our condemnation. They exercised their free speech. We should do the same and tell these errant children that it is time to behave like adults.

Posted by: Jack at November 25, 2005 02:38 PM

Jack,
Could it be that 60% of the population in SF believe that their children of the High School age are not muture enough to make such a choice? Just a thought?

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at November 25, 2005 02:48 PM

Rocky wrote:
“That is exactly the point. Whether they get raked over the coals for their actions or not, they have their right to their dissent.
What is wrong, is to make it personal and as insulting as some of the other comments on this thread have made it.”
___________________________________________

You actually proved Jacks point with that response. They can disagree and we can disagree with their viewpoints. However, you totally dismissed his comment “Disgusting, however, is the mendacity of the whole thing. SF will not be ostracized. They will be lauded, defended, praised and honored for taking a “hard stand”. They are doing nothing honorable or hard. They can stand on their hind legs and howl all they want, but in the end they are taking a PC course that gets them lots of benefits at cost only to others. “

I bring this up b/c this goes back my on-going thesis and that’s “dissent is American, hate is not”.

Posted by: rahdigly at November 25, 2005 02:50 PM

Would assume than that 60% would support parental notification (no let the parent decide) in cases of abortion and 60% would support curfews. And 60% would support bans obsene materials aimed at minors.

At 18 we allow the kids to vote. We let them decide most things in life. If an 18 year old can’t decide, that is a different problem.

Recruiters involve the parents in decisions. The Marine recruiter called and talked to me before he talked seriously to my son. This is not a stealth thing.

Posted by: Jack at November 25, 2005 02:55 PM

Jack,

As a parent of both former and active duty daughters, i respectfully disagree with your position.

Both my daughters were recruited in high school. Having learned our lesson with the first, we did not give parental consent to the second so she could not use the split option to serve WHILE still in high school.

That said, i am proud of and humbled with respect for my daughters, my brother, husband, friends all all who serve. However, i do not think either high school or early college students have the life experience, wherewithal to be able to maintain their patriotism while simultaneously appropriately evaluating the hidden depths, clauses, loopholes and ramifications of signing a contract with the military today.

That is the military which holds elisted people, not just commissioned officers.. after their enlistment period is over. That is the military that promises training and experience in one field while assigning them to unrelated duty in areas for which they were not trained.

My oldest waited until after her enlistment and college before starting a family. However, today’s military can choose to reactivate her now with absolutely no consideration for her child’s care or welfare.

My youngest trained as a jet engine mechanic only to be deployed as secuurity detail… being given 48 hrs of weapons training just before leaving. (They did not recycle her for missing weapons training during Basic as she was medically confined to quarters for 24 hr — mononucleosis was diagnosed as she was received into AIT.)

No sir, i do not think teebagers have the ability to navigate with awareness the snares of military recruiters. This is not the same military of the last generation. Lay off the teenagers and let people serve who understand the sacrifices they are accepting.

Posted by: jo at November 25, 2005 03:01 PM

“teebagers”= teenagers.

lol

Posted by: jo at November 25, 2005 03:05 PM

Jack,

Children can make up their minds about if they want an abortion or not (without parental consent) and learn sex education when they’re 12 years old; it’s their decision, their mature enough and they’re “going to have sex anyway”. However, when it’s comes to the military, they are “children” or “someone’s child”; therefore, they can’t make up their minds and they shouldn’t fight in wars.

You’re just not understanding the liberal mindset!

Posted by: rahdigly at November 25, 2005 03:06 PM

didnt this same city also vote in favor of abortion without parental consent? How can you be mature enough to decide wether or not to bring a life into this world but not mature enough to make a decision to defend their country

Posted by: Korey at November 25, 2005 03:11 PM

rahdigly,

With American streets and shop windows plastered with NeoCon capitalist marketting porn, i shouldn’t wonder that 5yr olds would need sex education.

Posted by: jo at November 25, 2005 03:13 PM

There’s a big difference between defending America and invading a third-world, third-rate tin-horn dictatorship that posed no threat to us.

Personally, I think SF got it wrong. I don’t think the recruiters should be banned. Nor do I think that the schools should be REQUIRED to give the names of students to miltary recruiters. In case you didn’t know, that’s a part of “No Child Left Behind”.

Jack,
According to your previous post, those folks in SF who you describe in this post as “privileged” are more “virtuous” than the rest of the country, aren’t they?

Posted by: ElliottBay at November 25, 2005 03:13 PM

Jo

The point is that you withheld permission. You exercised your parental authority. You had that right AND you did what’s right. That is how it should be. Does the city of SF know what is best for your kids better than you do?

At 18 we allow kids to do all sorts of things. I agree that 18 year olds are immature and need guidance. But we let them make other decisions about their lives. They can choose to go to college, or not. Surely that changes their lives. They can go to work on an Alaskan fishing boat. They can travel to Europe. They can take employment with any legitimate firm and that should also apply to the military.

Beyond that, the SF resolution applies to both public HS AND Colleges. At what age would they be able to make the decision?

Posted by: jack at November 25, 2005 03:15 PM

rahdigly,

“However, you totally dismissed his comment “Disgusting, however, is the mendacity of the whole thing. SF will not be ostracized. They will be lauded, defended, praised and honored for taking a “hard standâ€.”

By who? Themselves?

Give me a break!

San Francisco is one of the last enclaves of totally blue thinking people, and I wouldn’t expect less of them.
Jack is entitled to his opinion, and I respect that but to gloss over the responses that called for the terrorist bombing of San Francisco because they are “different”, is truely disgusting.

Posted by: Rocky at November 25, 2005 03:19 PM

Elliot

Priveledged. I never used that word at all in the post. I don’t know if they built wealth or if they just have high incomes, both or neither, and it is all statistical in any case (as I wrote).

Probably a lot fall into that celebrity deadbeat category. But all that is for the other post.

Posted by: Jack at November 25, 2005 03:20 PM

Priveleged - I mean didn’t use it in the earlier post.

Posted by: Jack at November 25, 2005 03:21 PM

Rocky

Nobody should hurt anyone in SF in any way. They are wrong, but they are still Americans. We still defend them and their right to be wrong.

Don’t play into the SF moralizing needfullness. They like it when they can pretend that they are taking a big risk when they are just playing games.

Posted by: Jack at November 25, 2005 03:24 PM

What kind of mind set produces a measure like that? I am sure these guys hate the president. They oppose the war in Iraq. They probably dislike military culture and almost certainly got a hard time in gym class back in high school from guys with short haircuts.

And I guess guys that agree with your viewpoint enjoy masturbating with vibrators. Or is that just projecting what we would like to assume about each side?

Disgusting, however, is the mendacity of the whole thing. SF will not be ostracized.

Really? Having people like Vibrator Bill and “Troop Supporter” call for the bombing of the city is not what you would consider ostracized? I wonder how far they would have to go, Jack.

It’s obviously frustrating to you that the entire country isn’t as outraged as you, huh? That’s how it feels on the fringe, my friend.

No SF is not preventing recruiting. That would take moral courage they don’t have and would risk the loss of Federal dollars

Please cite evidence that SF would lose any “Federal dollars” if they had prevented recruiting. Otherwise, you’re just blowing smoke.

Posted by: Burt at November 25, 2005 03:30 PM

Jack,

“They like it when they can pretend that they are taking a big risk when they are just playing games.”

Don’t make the mistake of assuming that because I defend their actions, I agree with their stand.

San Francisco is different. It always has been, and may it always be so. I have lived there, it is a beutiful city and the “difference” is actually part of the attraction.

Posted by: Rocky at November 25, 2005 03:34 PM

Jack,

i am middle aged and yet i feel i was too naive myself when i consented to my first daughter’s enlistment as a junior in high school. i trusted the military then. Since political manuevers like stop-loss etc have become SOP my trust is in the soldiers themselves alone… i have no respect ot trust anymore for their top commanders.

Btw, YOU try raising a high school teen who every month is REQUIRED to attend a weekend beer bash (training exercise) with no recourse despite it being illegal in my state to drink under age 21.

Posted by: jo at November 25, 2005 03:34 PM

Jack,
I would like to tell you, brilliant. I attend a public high school and I see living action of your opinions everyday. Teenagers no longer think that their country deserves their loyalty, and in turn their service. They think the government exists for their comfort, not their protection. In frightens me. We need to band together to fight this movement of irresponsibility and instill some values back into America again.

Posted by: Rachel at November 25, 2005 03:39 PM

Burt

I can actually thank you for giving me the idea for this post. I had not heard of the ban until you told me. All I know is what I read in the Newspapers. I just searched “san Francisco military recruiting” and came up with this:

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2005/11/08/state/n221356S64.DTL

Maybe they won’t lose Federal funding if the forbid recruiting. I don’t know for sure. If they don’t, it just reinforces the point that SF risks nothing by doing this and accomplishes nothing except a feeling of moral superiority. O’Reilly plays into their hands and so do others who react with threats. The left coast loonies enjoy that. (Just like righties are delighted by the attacks of the likes of Michael Moore or Barbara Streisand.) The 60% of the electorate who voted for this silly thing should be seen as the spoiled brats (some now very aged flower children) they are.

Jo

My son is thinking of the Marines. I just want him to make an informed choice. It may be the best thing for him or not. I don’t know. The Marines have been very polite and inclusive to me.

Rachel

Thanks.

Rocky

I know you are not like that. I have spent some time in SF and it is a nice place. The locals are mostly harmless, if a bit odd. I have nothing against them most of the time, but they local intelligentia tends live rich, think they are poor, dwell 30 years in the past but with really modern technology. It is a curious contradiction.

Posted by: Jack at November 25, 2005 03:49 PM

Jack, your Republican intolerance is showing. You seem to be arguing that there is no room in this country for a city of peace, or room for pacifists in this great land, or room for dissenters, or room for whatever other kinds of folks, ideas, and temeperaments you find divergent from your own.

Diversity of opinion, religion, culture, talents, skills, education, and drive are the stuff that made America great. When I enlisted in the Army, as a Buddhist, I sought conscientious objector status upon enlistment in the hopes of being able to avoid being put in the position of having to kill another human being. I did not meet the requirements, but enlisted anyway. I will tell you though, I respected my government and our military in part for acknowledging and accepting conscientious objectors into the military.

In Basic Traning, I had a Con. Objector in my squad, and I was impressed that except for being exempt from firearm and grenade training, he was treated by the DI’s and us enlistees and draftees equally. I think it is a strength that America has room for men and women of peace, and I believe they should be represented in our government as they are in our society. I am sure your mileage probably varies, but, that is also a strength of both WatchBlog and America.

Posted by: David R. Remer at November 25, 2005 04:02 PM

Jack,

San Francisco is free theater. Nothing more, nothing less.

Posted by: Rocky at November 25, 2005 04:03 PM

Jack,

I saw a History Channel piece on George McGovern the other night.

Talk about different man.

A war hero that became a pacifist.

Posted by: Rocky at November 25, 2005 04:07 PM

Jack
Let me get this straight. Looking at this from a smaller less obtrusive government viewpoint, its okay for the federal government to mandate that student names must be released to recruiters but not okay for local citizens to resist federal mandates? BTW there were no recruiters in my high school but that did not stop me from serving for 24 years. Chicken hawks may rule but they didn’t serve.

Posted by: Not a Chicken Hawk at November 25, 2005 04:08 PM

jack, you fail to mention the root of the problem: all recruiters, military or not, have to abide by the same regulations. For example, a recruiter cannot discriminate on the basis of gender, race or sexual prefference. The Military discriminates on the basis of sexual prefference, as if gay americans were disserving of the honor to fight for their country. If the military didn’t want to be the exception to the rule, then there would be no problem with its precense on campus.

Posted by: Dan at November 25, 2005 04:25 PM

Is it not strange how we want to protect our Youth and our form of government at the same time? However, I must side with the citizens of SF if it was due to our children not being muture enough at 16-18 to make such a committment. For if We as a Nation has spoken that we do not think that those under the age of 21 is mature enough to legally decide to drink than how can our society believe that these same children make up their mind to lay down their lifes for their Nation?

While I may not agree with the argument, whom an I to say that they are wrong. Could it be that the Military was not willing to bend in order to ensure the parents that their children would not be “Hoodwinked” by a Recuiter? A time honored practice gone because both sides could not see the Wisdom of why We recuit High School Grads and not College Grads.

It seems to me that a deal was missed that would of allowed the Military to address the Parents and Students who are interested in serving this Country by proposing a Recuitment Event on the Weekend or possible sponser a Career Building Event where they were a part of the many options offered in the students. At least in this manner we can see that both sides have thier rights protected. It is to bad that the local community leaders couldn’t get something like this to work with our Federal Representatives of the Military.

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at November 25, 2005 04:31 PM

David

One reason I wrote this post was to show support for dissent. SF’s and mine. One of the organizers interviewed seemed to think that it was a moral victory. I disagree.

Why is it tolerant for SF to claim that theirs is a moral victory and not tolerant for me to disagree and point out inconsistencies?

Free speech is only useful if you also have the freedom to criticize it. What is the alternative? 60% of the SF electorate makes a political statement (that is what they have done). I disagree with that. Does their right to speak render me silent?

And in the all volunteer army, pacifist presumably don’t need to volunteer. Nobody in makin’ nobody do nothin’ - except SF. SF evidently believes in the Daniel Shays statement about freedom. “Freedom doesn’t mean doing what you want. It means making other people do what you want.”

Chicken Hawk

As I understand the legislation, it doesn’t ban recruiting. It really only opens the “moral” possibilty of bothering recruiters. That is why it is mendacious.

It is a political statement, pure and simple, as such we can agree or disagree with it. It is not a toleration issue or a dissent issue - or even a who serves issue.

Posted by: Jack at November 25, 2005 04:32 PM

San Francisco, where the men are pretty and the women are strong.
I’s no suprise to me that a town so full of lily livered idiots would ban Military recruitment. After all they hate the Military and the United States. They think they should be their own counrty no doubt.
I’ve been to San Francisco two times. Both times I was heading to Vietman. The only way you’ll get me back to that God forsaken slum is DEAD.

Posted by: Ron Brown at November 25, 2005 04:34 PM

Not a Chicken Hawk

Chicken hawks may rule but they didn’t serve.

Would you bet your life on that?

Posted by: Ron Brown at November 25, 2005 04:39 PM

Jack,

I’ve read your post and have to agree that the United States military should have access to all potential recruits, in all high schools.
I do however don’t share your contempt for those who disagree with us.

troop supporter (Correctly spelled),

I totally agree with bill o’riely. Terriots should blow up those libreals scum. san fransisco is a bunch of gay loving liberals who hate america and the best president ever.

As a liberal,who does not support this president, I thank you and and all you do for our cause.
Keep posting

Posted by: Andre M. Hernandez at November 25, 2005 04:46 PM

Maybe we should have required military service? 2 or 3 years for everyone? anyone who ops out does not get to vote? just throwing out ideas

Posted by: john m at November 25, 2005 05:01 PM

My only issue with any collective effort at banning a group, organization or cause is the hypocrisy of the action. Especially in San Francisco. They (most living in the bay area) proudly proclaim their tolerance and acceptance of all, yet feel compelled to silence those they do not agree with in principle. Is that not a double standard? Am I missing the point?

If any legitimate organization has access to recruit on a school campus, then ANY legitimate organization should have access, including the military. Not just those that some like or agree with. Freedom works both ways. You are free to voice your opposition, but should not ban unless you are comfortable with the label “hypocrit.”

Posted by: Hypocrit? at November 25, 2005 05:23 PM

Guys you are missing the point. You can’t say that San Francisco is not american just because they are not rightwing. When you start throwing insults like that, you are only venting out and not looking at the real problem. There is a reason why we have anti-discrimination laws. Those laws apply to all recruiters, not just to the military. Should we change the laws back to the times when women were not allowed to vote, blacks had to sit on the back of the bus and gay people had to go to psychologists?

Posted by: Henry at November 25, 2005 06:02 PM

i find it interesting that the military recruites more at inner city and low income school then they do in the subs.

jp

Posted by: jp at November 25, 2005 07:23 PM

San Francisco is just an “embarrassment” to the United States of America!

Posted by: Longstreet at November 25, 2005 07:37 PM

Henry,
If I am not mistaking the Elders of SF atempted to work out a deal with a problem they have with No Child Left Behind Act (NCLBA) in 2001 For if this is such a crime to the American Society than why has not the Republicans spoke out about this 10 years ago when they were calling shinking the Military? After all SF has ban the recruiters through the 90’s and no one has spoke up.

Or is it just an ego trip by the Republican Party when their authority is questioned? Like I said, the Military Recuiters should be allowed in as others corps. & orgs. sponser career day in our public schools. If equal treatment is observed than this would only be considered fair given the rights of all the citizens and students correct?

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at November 25, 2005 07:40 PM

JP

It would be interesting if the military recruited more in the inner city, but they don’t. Broadly speaking, the military looks like America. It is a little more rural and more southern and LESS from the inner cities.

John M

The military doesn’t want and can’t use everyone. That is why nobody is seriously calling for a draft.

Henry

That is a red herring. I didn’t call SF not American. In fact I called them my fellow citizens who were just mistaken (and grandstanding).

Posted by: Jack at November 25, 2005 07:42 PM

My son is thinking of the Marines. I just want him to make an informed choice. It may be the best thing for him or not. I don’t know. The Marines have been very polite and inclusive to me.

Jack,

Both the army and navy recruiter were very polite and inclusive with me as well; but in my respect for the military, i let down my guard that recruiters are salesmen. As such they did not tell me everything, such as some rogue officers using monthly Guard exercises as free beer parties or that the barracks are co-ed. Neither of these comes close to what the top brass and civilian commanders/Congress have done in undermining the integrity of the institution to avoid the political fall-out of a draft.

Mandatory limited term service sounds great to me— much better than now demanding that whatever number of years on a contract, the military own a volunteer for life. This may be fine for career military people, but for many who want to serve yet also have hopes of a future life in other fields and pursuits (such as a family) it is a drop down impassable barricade. Never mind the negligence of veterans.

If your son serves, i also hope that he does so with full knowledge and understanding. It is a shame we (the government) require such a heavy price of our service men and women.

Posted by: jo at November 25, 2005 07:42 PM

Jo,
I’m not sure about the Military being Mandatory; however I to like the idea that every 18 year old serve in a structure that allows the choice between Military or Civil Services for 2-4 years. In this manner maybe we can get our society helping itself get a bootstarp up as all citizens have something in common.

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at November 25, 2005 07:51 PM

Jack, the only reason you’re even discussing this is that Republican commentators have made a big deal out of this. They are shocked that such a deeply blue, nay, leftist part of the country is acting like this.

The problem is, the Republican party hasn’t been fighting the War on Terror, it’s been refighting the Cold War, with the putative evil of “Islamofascism” replacing Communism. Twenty years ago, Bill O’Reilly might have invited the Soviets to invade San Francisco. Twenty years ago, Rush would be calling the French Pinkos or Reds. Hell, he probably was calling them that back then!

My theory here is that in the absence of a dramatic conclusion to the Cold War (the Soviets going out not with a bang but a whimper), there have been a number of conservative and neoconservative officials looking for a enemy to lead America into combat against, to prove what mighty defenders of the realm they are.

Only, in that question, they’ve made a cohesive enemy out of smaller ones who aren’t that sticky with one another. And that means that any policy they come up with on that premise is bound to have unforseen circumstances (at least for them) that will frustrate their policy.

What we need from our leaders, Red or Blue, is a much more facts-up approach to analyzing our enemy. Let’s drop the bad assumptions of both the Blue and the Red Column, and less find out what’s really going on. America will win this war only on the best possible intelligence, only by getting into the heads of our enemies and frustrating their plans and ambitions. We need to know what buttons to push.

In the end, this is not a war between Democrats and Republicans, between the Free World and the Islamofascists, or between Islam and the West.

This is a struggle between the darkness in the soul of different cultures and the light of civilization, and each side in the putative War on Terror has turned self-destructively on itself as well as on our enemies. Peace must be our goal, not the peace of confrontations avoided, but of confrontations handled maturely, responsibly, and only violently out of necessity.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at November 25, 2005 07:52 PM

Stephen,
I’ll second that motion. The only thing that I would add is that if violence has to be used than society must learn to understand that it has to be matched with deadly force to cause the least amount of harm to all.

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at November 25, 2005 08:03 PM

I’m not sure about the Military being Mandatory; however I to like the idea that every 18 year old serve in a structure that allows the choice between Military or Civil Services for 2-4 years. In this manner maybe we can get our society helping itself get a bootstarp up as all citizens have something in common.

Henry,

i do not think civil service would instill the needed discipline (which imo, America desperately lacks today) nor the sense of teamwork/interdependancy that military service would provide.

That said, if such ever were seriously considered, i would hope they would make necessary adjustments for consicentious objectors/people preferring not to be trained to kill. (Call me a wimp; but this thought gives me the heeby jeebies despite my familial experience.)

A support group fully trained in defense yet training alongside the combat troops might be a starting point for compromise? Do not tell my husband/children or they will string me up for even suggesting such a thing! :-o

Also, i think four years is a little much. Perhaps a year of intensive training combined with periodic service such as is now required with the Guard and reserve would adequately provide for the needs of the nation.

Posted by: jo at November 25, 2005 08:13 PM

Jo,
I do understand your concern with my wording; however, you do bring up a good idea. Combine Nation Building Units (i.e. Civil Services) and train them in “Boot Camp” along with those who elect to serve in our Military. Kartrina has provided us a good proving ground, any bets on if our elected officails would go for it?

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at November 25, 2005 08:22 PM

The main difference between liberals and conservatives is that liberals support the idea of being true to one’s self; i.e.”do your own thing” while conservatives insist upon society following their values. Americans are born with the right to follow their consceince, not to mindlessly stand as one.

Posted by: craig at November 25, 2005 08:24 PM

Craig,
Shouldn’t that be All Humans?

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at November 25, 2005 08:31 PM

Craig

Then how is it SF insists on limiting the choices available to its citizens and insists that they don’t have the ability to make up their own minds?

Posted by: Jack at November 25, 2005 08:34 PM

Seriously, being an American is also about doing what you think is right, even though you may be ostracized for you opinion.

Is San Francisco actually preventing recruits from joining the military?

No? Then what exactly is your point?

Posted by: Rocky at November 25, 2005 01:31 PM

How would San Francisco actually prevent individuals from deciding to join the military?
Making it harder to join by taking away recrutment oppertunities is a step in that directin though. Of course laws and rights dont really matter in the city where the mayor decided he could overrule an amendment to the states constitution voted on by the people of the state. This anti-military stand is just tipical “Liberal tollerance”, tollerate people who think like you do and hate everyone else.

Posted by: kelly at November 25, 2005 08:38 PM

any bets on if our elected officails would go for it?

lol, the only bet i would place on elected officials today is that they will certainly find many and varied means to screw the people.

Posted by: jo at November 25, 2005 08:39 PM

Jo,

Only until the voice of “I the Consumer” roars. Look at Society’s Powers-to-Be today and whom do they kiss up to? It’s a matter of survival, for what has happened to those corporation that have outraged “We the Consumers?” Special Interest Groups only are good until they no longer serve our inherent best interests. No, the movement is slow, but even today you see more and more consumers not falling for the game. So it is time for a change.

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at November 25, 2005 09:19 PM

Jack,
I wonder how you would feel about this ban if instead of San Fransisco, it was Lancaster, PA, who decided that due to their pacifist heritage they couldn’t support military recruitment in their high schools. I think a lot of the outrage about this is not because of the actions that were taken, but rather because it was liberals who took them.

Posted by: Brian Poole at November 25, 2005 09:21 PM

Well, well, well. And a very happy Thanksgiving to you too, Jack!

As one of the many liberal “weirdo’s” who live and work in the amazingly beautiful and fabulously creative SF Bay Area, I have to laugh at the complete ridiculousness of your article and at the many twisted opinions which have followed from posters who don’t live here but who so heartily dissapprove of us.
You ask: What is an American? (As though Republican’s alone are allowed to define that term. What arrogance!)
And then you allude to the belief that those who live here, somehow aren’t. Or if we are American, I suppose we aren’t “good” enough for you, right? But the funny thing about that is the fact that the SF Bay Area is chock full of people who hail from every single state in this country (not to mention folks who have immigrated from all over the world), so your supposition is extremely laughable.
San Francisco and surrounding areas are really about as American as you can get. As American as apple pie, in fact — yet with a highly superior cup of coffee to go with it.

As for measure I - you seem to be missing the point. This measure was nothing more and no less than a statement of utter outrage against the Neocon’s who took this country into a pre-emptive war on a pack of lies. It is progressive policy made on the local level that many hope will be one small way to turn the tide of this senseless and thoroughly optional war in Iraq. Folks who live here are very aware that if this kind of thing spreads to other cities and communities it might actually force the military to resort to a draft in order to meet their numbers —or in other words, it may be the surest way to end the war in Iraq sooner rather than later.

Measure I is a protest against the military creating what is in actuality a POVERTY DRAFT which disproportionately targets young people of color with limited job and educational opportunities. Using federal policies, these militarty recruiters have been allowed to come into the classroom and do nothing but LIE to these kids — routinely assuring potential enlistees that they’re unlikely to see combat (which is complete BS).
And they’ve been going after young Asian, Latino, and Black kids, telling them that the military will completely finance their college educations, when the fact of the matter is all G.I. Bill participants are always required to pay the military one hundred dollars a month during their first year of service in order to be eligible for education benefits later. And while that hefty deposit is nonrefundable, it turns out that only a very small percentage of enlisted personnel who complete four years in the military ever end up receiving any money for school.
Just as disingenuous is the way these recruiters are promising kids all kinds of job training and career development, but they’re lying about the kinds of jobs they’ll end up with, because the truth is, the military doesn’t have to make any promises over what they’ll be doing once they’re signed up.

So, unless you consider it American to lie to kids about their futures, and make false promises that will almost never be kept in order to get them to risk their lives for a senseless war, then just go right ahead and call us Crazy, Weirdo, Un-American Left-Coast Liberals. We’ve never been shy of taking a stand or of being different, and we know that no other area in this country has ever come as close as we do, indeed as we always have, in epitomizing what American freedom can truly be.

Posted by: Adrienne at November 25, 2005 09:29 PM

Brian

I might feel differently if it was based on a long standing tradition

My big problem with the SF move is precisely that it is political statement made at the expense of a serious issue.

BTW - If you are talking about the Amish, recruiting in HS is not a problem for them in any way. They finish school in the 8th Grade.

Remember also VOLUNTEER military. SF is limited the choices of students in its school district.

Posted by: Jack at November 25, 2005 09:41 PM

Jack,
You said in this post:

What we have in SF is a bunch of privileged people

In your last post you claimed that wealth (i.e., privilege) = virtue. But when called on it, you now claim that

a lot fall into that celebrity deadbeat category

So are you now claiming that wealthy people are virtuous only if they agree with your politics? Or are you claiming that most of the residents of SF are celebrities? Neither makes any sense.

Ron Brown,

Not a Chicken Hawk, Chicken hawks may rule but they didn�t serve. Would you bet your life on that? — Posted by: Ron Brown at November 25, 2005 04:39 PM

Over 2,000 have bet their lives on the chickenhawks, so far.

Posted by: ElliotBay at November 25, 2005 09:46 PM

Jack,
SF has had that policy for the last 10 years and the only reason that it came back into play was the NCLBA Act of 2001. 10 years may not seem that long as a tradition, but have to start somewhere do you not?

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at November 25, 2005 09:51 PM

CRAIG-

Your comment doesn’t make a lick of sense but entertaining none the less.

Here’s my super lefty idea that may ruffle the feathers of the left on this site: Why not push recruitment on delinquents over eighteen who are repetitively committing dumb crimes(non violent offenses)such as drunk driving,not appearing in court, small time thefts and the like.

They either serve a four year stint in the military (any branch) or serve time in federal prison should they fail on grounds not bearing on handicaps/physical innability etcetera. Federal prisons are cheaper to house delinquents than state supported county jails.

We put the delinquents of stupid crimes who are going to jails on these dumb charges repititiously and throw them right into boot camp as a means to save states money by having to house them where the states barely even break even even with adding fines.

Like a French Legion, I don’t buy this nonsense that they have to be more intelligent and who’s to say that some might not even make special forces teams or perhaps even more technical fields.

As far as San Fran I have to say who’s to say these kids aren’t making knowledgable choices. I did when my father wanted me to join a branch of military, I looked at him like he had three heads.

They do make semi-intelligent choices and the military is what it is and they know that. It’s not all private Benjamin scenarios unless you are too stupid to know what the military is to begin with.

It’s not a threat to have them recruiting but I do have a problem with RTOC in highschools because at that age kids are pretty much half-retarded and will follow blindly like baby ducks.

‘Craig Holmes’ again your arguement/post was so fraught with head-scratchable delirium and pseudo-patriotism, thanks for the entertainment.

Posted by: Novenge at November 25, 2005 09:51 PM

Adrienne

I figured would write in.

Re the poverty draft – the U.S. military is broadly representative of the U.S. It is more southern and more rural. It is more African American AND it is more white. Asians and Latinos are underrepresented.

Whites make up 77.4% of the applicable population. In 2003 they made up 78.5% of the recruits.
. If the military manages to increase the numbers of underrepresented groups, it might get to look even more like America.

Income levels in the military are also similar to U.S. levels, adjusting for its slightly rural and southern nature. Of course if rich places like SF make it harder to recruit, I suppose the relatively more poor kids will join.

You confirmed my belief that it was just a political decision based on ephemeral considerations.

I have been to your fair city. It is very beautiful and evidently at least 40% of the people are reasonable. The others may come around in time.

Posted by: Jack at November 25, 2005 09:55 PM

Adriene,

Who gave you that freedom? It was our nation’s military and they do not pick by color or ethnicity. That makes you the liar!

I can already picture what kind of stand you would take. As far as being different, yes I agree, you are.

You have no respect for that man or woman that is protecting you out there while you are sitting confortably in San Francisco and critising what they do

Posted by: BigEd at November 25, 2005 10:00 PM

Elliott

I don’t want to argue the old post in this one. Look at the nuance. I specifically reject the idea that income and money equal wealth or that wealth and virtue are the same. Many people have money that are not wealthy. The ability to build wealth over time (I use that specific formula) corelates with virtues such as self control and intelligence. It is statistical corelation. Corelation is not causality.

Norvenge

I had a 2nd cousin who was bad - petty crime, drug abuse etc. He wasn’t dumb and he wasn’t evil, just the misguided product of a broken home and unhappy family. He wanted to join the Marines. His father talked him out of it because he was infected with Vietnam era attitudes. The kid drifted. He finally died of a drug overdose. I don’t know if the Marines could have reformed him, but the result could not have been worse than the alternative.

Posted by: Jack at November 25, 2005 10:08 PM

Jack,
I know about the Amish, (I used to live near there), which is why I phrased my question how I did. I think you answered the question, though. You respect pacifism, as long as it isn’t liberal pacifism. Then, it’s unamerican.

How is it restricting choices of young people to not have recruiters come to their schools? That’s the big question that everyone has asked, but no one has answered. Are schools required to let every business, every college, every possible endeavor come pitch to their students or else they are repressing them? No one is being made to do anything they don’t want to do, or prevented from doing anything they want to do, except military recruiters.
I agree that it’s kind of a bad policy, but I think it fits who they are there, and the present circumstances. What I don’t like is the overblown outrage, the cries that the left is opressing high school students. Seriously, it’s over the top.

Posted by: Brian at November 25, 2005 10:17 PM

Big Ed,
You don’t know a damn thing about me, so why don’t you just shut it.
Critique the message, not the messenger.

Posted by: Adrienne at November 25, 2005 10:36 PM

Brian

Yes. It is a difference between a moral decision and a political expedient. If the liberal or anyone else is a pacifist in all situations, I respect that. But I don’t respect situational pacifism. Sort of like the guy who is married only when he is in the same town as his wife and family.

The military is not exactly like other professions. It is something we need and we all depend on. It certainly is the right of a competent person to join the military and we should applaud the decision, not interfere with it.

What is the establishment of SF fear? Maybe some of its citizens are not so anti-military as they are. I wonder how many of that 60% were parents. It should be a decision left to the kids and their parents. Why is it even anyone else’s business? Given the particular nature of SF culture, I would assume there are fewer kids per capita and a lot of those voters have little personal experience raising kids. Maybe that’s why they made poor choices.

Posted by: Jack at November 25, 2005 10:42 PM

Jack,
I think that you are wrong in labelling what SF is doing as a political expedient, less worthy of respect than a tradition of pacifism. Really, what is more to be admired, a belief you inherited or a conscious decision that something is immoral? Do you really have to be a pacifist always to think a particular war is immoral, and have that decision be a legitimate one?
You say that the decision to enlist should be left to the kids and their parents. Isn’t that what the bill is trying to do? Let the parents guide the kids, without interference from the recruiters?

Posted by: Brian Poole at November 25, 2005 10:53 PM

Brian

It depends on whether SF will be pacifist in all future cases. My point is that it is not something to turn on and off.

You don’t attack the military as an institution to get get back at one president or oppose one war. Bush will not be president three years from now. The war in Iraq may or may not be over. The SF rules will be in place much longer.

If they don’t like the war, let them say that. I tell you what, it starts to make SF look more and more craven.

As for the parents and kids decision, make it the same for other things. Will SF demand the same kinds of things for other important life choices. Abortion comes to mind, but what about any long term decision.

Posted by: Jack at November 25, 2005 11:42 PM

Jack:
“Given the particular nature of SF culture, I would assume there are fewer kids per capita and a lot of those voters have little personal experience raising kids.”

You would assume wrong — in fact it seems you are assuming a great many things about where I live that are dead wrong. Maybe this is because you’ve only visited here, rather than lived here.
There happen to be tons of children in the SF Bay Area. Indeed, quite a few of my friends are teachers, and whether they work in the city or in the suburbs, all of them complain about having to teach in overcrowded classrooms.
You talk about SF culture, but you seem to be overlooking the fact that it extends well beyond the parameters of the city itself. The truth is, while many people work in the city, they very often choose to live outside it. Take my husband and I, for instance. Our work is in San Francisco, but we decided we’d rather live on the other side of the bay in Oakland and take the subway to work, rather than have to drive in bumper to bumper traffic across the Bay Bridge every morning. (It’s not only cheaper than driving and paying for parking in the city, but quicker, and better for the environment, too).
The vast majority of people who live in this area aren’t all rich the way you’ve been assuming, either. (Although if you drive north across the Golden Gate Bridge to Marin County, that’s a whole different world of money.) While our salaries may seem higher than average for the country, you have to remember that it is also extremely expensive to live here. Everything costs more. Monthly housing costs for both owners and renters are some of the steepest in the nation. And the cost of gasoline and basic needs like food and clothing are through the roof.
Though we may have more liberals per capita than most places, and a very unique cultural character that is very friendly, open-minded and accepting of many different kinds of people, I’m getting the distinct impression that you’ve been holding an outdated view of the SF Bay Area that actually bears little to today’s reality.

Posted by: Adrienne at November 25, 2005 11:57 PM

Adrienne

The people commuting into SF don’t vote there, nor do their kids go to school there.

FYI - I checked the census. Persons under 18 years old SF - 14.5% versus California generally - 27.3%. About half as many.

But you are right, I have not been there for about ten years. But the recent vote says a lot about the way things are. Anyway, I don’t have a problem with the people of SF, just the way they voted for the reasons I mentioned.

Posted by: Jack at November 26, 2005 12:24 AM

Jack,
Although you are titled to your opinion, do you realize that SF banned recruiters 10 years ago and only had to readdress the problem when President Bush and Comgress stepped on their rights with No Child Left Behind Act. It seems that NCLBA ties fedearl money with demanding that the schools give up the kids name.

Given precedence of what was caused by this action of the Federal Government, you would think that the Republicans would be supporting Local/State Rights. Or is that just a fallback talking point now days?

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at November 26, 2005 03:50 AM

I agree with the general sentiment of responsibility and duty, but I think you’re missing the point, and just trying to piss on the liberals. I myself live close to the Bay Area, and have three brothers, all of whom have been in the reserves. I was very heavily recruited in high school, to the point where my parents had to call the local branch and get them to stop. It’s one thing to have a presence and ‘recruit’ and it’s another to harass and bully, which happened to me and two of my brothers. I respect the military, but recruiters are pretty low on the food chain, and keeping them away from kids who are trying to get through school is a good thing.

Posted by: Michelle at November 26, 2005 04:07 AM

I think we should require 2-4 years of government service from every U.S. citizen between the ages of 18-30. Service should be required regardless of economic status, education, sex, race, or religion. Either military service, Americorps, or some similar low pay service in controlled group setting (no high holiday for the rich in other words). I think this would help create a mindset for the next generation that we are all in this together. Maybe the CEO’s from that generation would think twice before pilfering corporations and cutting health insurance and pensions of the retired.

Americans SHOULD serve. Conservatives are very patriotic so I don’t understand why our recruitment numbers are so low when conservatives support the war effort and are the majority of the country.

I agree with the voters in CA, though. To target the students who face the highest chance of poor jobs and the lowest chance of going to college is not moral. The middle class conservatives support the war. Let the recruiters go to the private schools.

Posted by: Rick at November 26, 2005 09:56 AM

Henry

So it is about the money.

In my original post I criticized SF for simply harassing and not banning recruiters to keep the money but feel the moral superiority. I considered it craven because they were taking road that cost them nothing. Burt asked about that. I didn’t know the answer. Now I do. SF has stood up on its collective hind legs to howl but it is just howling.

Rich

The U.S. military is a little more southern and a little more rural. Besides that it broadly resembles the U.S. The lowest income groups are not well represented and the inner cities are very poor places to recruit.

You are right that everything depends on alternative opportunities but wrong about your conclusions. If the military offer a person a better alternative to what he would get outside the military - good for the military. I don’t think they need to apologize for offering opportunities.

If you want to read about the demographics, follow the link

Posted by: Jack at November 26, 2005 10:44 AM

Wait a minute! Wait a minute!

Are we talking about VOLUNTARY military service? A military service where young people actually have the OPTION to join or not to join?

I think everyone here needs to take two steps back from the subject and look at other countries around the world. Other countries that REQUIRE military service. No draft. No option. No whining. No pissing and moaning. You graduate high school and then you go to the military.

Now, what were you all saying about military recruiters in the high schools?

Posted by: Jim T at November 26, 2005 12:42 PM

Interesting discussion. Here’s my take on this.

As a 17 year old, I decided to join the Marines. Was it an informed decision? In retrospect, it wasn’t, but I did it anyway. My parents objected, but I simply explained that I was joining, and they could chose to sign me into DEP or I would wait until I was 18 and take whatever job the Corps had to offer. They signed. As for as involuntary call-ups, they have existed since we ended the draft. Every service member has a period of inactive reserve duty included in their contract. This is not new. It has been around for 30 years, and I’ve known men who spent longer on active duty than they anticipated in the 70’s, 80’s, and 90’s.

As far as allowing recruiters into High Schools and Colleges, I see no harm in it. It is a career choice, the same as some chose to become writers, plumbers, or businesspeople. If you deny military recruiters access, then you also need to deny corporate recruiters access. My eldest son has not only been approached by military recruiters on campus, but also by recruiters from Bell & Howell, Verizon, GM, and Panasonic (He’s a junior at Rutgers). Why should anyone be denied any career options they are qualified for?

Finally, as to the tangent Jack started on before veering off to a rant about SF. JFK epitomized the call to duty, to sacrifice, and to make your nation a better place. His goal was to make Americans understand that unless they are willing to help the nation, the nation will be unable to help them. To that end, I am equally appalled at the “me too” attitude that permeates our society. I’m quite tired of hearing people looking to the government for solutions to crises of their own making. This is true for both individuals and companies-they are equally culpable. As another president once said, “government is not the solution, it is the problem.”

Posted by: Ray at November 26, 2005 12:46 PM

Military recruitment is a legitimate government function therefore I think they have the right to recruit in schools.

One’s choice of which God(s) to worship is not the business of the government therefore the Ten Commandments shouldn’t be endorsed by the government.

Posted by: LouisXIV at November 26, 2005 01:19 PM

Jack,
My point was between the cities and richer subs since we were talking about SF. However, rural areas are some of the poorest areas in this country.

Adrienne,
When we talk about what the military we must look at where the races and economic levels are represented between officers/enlisted front line jobs/behind the lines…. A way to look at this who are the ones dying. It is the poorer.

We must take a look at all the issues and not pick just one out. If we want more recruits and a true representation of our country, then we need to raise the benefits, respect and show that when we take military action that it is well thought out and we can respond to the needs of our service people quicker then we have in recent history.(not just in this war)

jp

Posted by: jp at November 26, 2005 01:36 PM

When we talk about the military… (sorry) typing to fast

Posted by: jp at November 26, 2005 01:39 PM

JP

You are just wrong about some things.

Rural areas are poorer and they have a lower cost of living. But no matter how we slice it, the military resembles the U.S. FEWER from the poorest group. More whites AND more blacks. Fewer people from other groups.

As for the trigger pullers, they tend to be more white and richer. The idea that it is a poor man’s war is no longer true.

Update your stats on this.

Even if it were true that the poor are heavily represented, good. The military provides opportunity. AND it is voluntary. Do you want to not give the poor the choice? You are saying they are just too stupid to know what they want, os that the rich and educated must tell them?

Posted by: Jack at November 26, 2005 01:48 PM

i will find you the stats that show i am right in what i am saying.

Yes, it is important to give people choices in what they do. However, to keep them free to chose we need to make sure that it is not seen as the only choice which does happen a times because of how are education leaves some behind. i am just say there are many things we need to look at and speak honestly about.

You are right cost of living is lower out in the country but i have seen first hand the poverty in both areas. I have also talked with soldiers who felt that their only chance was the army.

jp

Posted by: jp at November 26, 2005 02:05 PM

JP

Re casulties we can’t get them by income, since soldiers once in make the same money. We do have by race, however.

In the general U.S. population, we have White non Hispanic - 69.1, Hispanic -12.5, African American - 12.3. Killed in Iraq, we have white - 73.8, African American 10.5, Hispanic - 10.8. Americans from all groups are sharing the risk. You can argue about a lot of statistics, but these are clear.

The leftish argument that the danger falls mostly on poor people of color is as old as the Vietnam war and about as appropriate as many ideas from back then.

Posted by: Jack at November 26, 2005 02:06 PM

Every service member has a period of inactive reserve duty included in their contract. This is not new.

Ray,

What IS new is the call ups/re-activations AFTER and BEYOND the period of inactive reserve duty contained in the contract. Today, once you sign, you are theirs, at their discretion, for life… just like commissioned officers. Of course officers have the option of accepting or rejecting a commission. The enlisted men do not, nor are they advised of this handy little loophole. THESE are the tactics of the upper command that has destroyed my trust in the military.

Posted by: jo at November 26, 2005 02:08 PM

Jack,
i would like to see where you are getting those numbers here is what i have.

Yes, income is hard to do but we can look at the income levels of where the recruits are coming from to get some kind of idea.

And yes some from each group are sharing the load and risk but it is not a even sharing at time. We have done a lot better recently then we have had in the past, but we must continue to improve.

2000 census http://www.census.gov/population/www/cen2000/briefs.html
24.9% non white in the US.

2003 Demographics Profile of the Military Community http://www.mfrc-dodqol.org/stat.cfm#demo “Over one-thrid (35.8%) of active Duty members identify themselves as a minority†20.5% of officers and 38.7% of enlisted.

The majority 86.1% of officers have a bachelor’s or higher degree. Few 3.7% enlisted members have a bachelor’s or higher degree. [i understand this has a lot to do with age and many singing up to later pay for school.]

Reserves: Almost one-third (30.6%) of the Selected Reserve identify themselves as a minority.

Income http://nationalpriorities.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=177&Itemid=107

Nearly two-thirds of all recruits (64%) were from counties with median household incomes below the US median. About one-third were from counties with a higher median household income. All of the top 20 counties had a median household income below the national median household income.
19 out of the top 20 counties had lower median household incomes than their respective state median household incomes. (As a whole, the county-level incomes averaged 70% of the state median income levels.)
15 of the top 20 counties had higher poverty rates than the national average.
11 of the top 20 counties had higher child poverty rates than the national average.
16 of the top 20 counties had higher child poverty rates than the state average.
18 of the top 20 had higher poverty rates than the state average.
Race/Ethnicity

Blacks made up 18.5% of Navy recruits, 17.2% of Army recruits, and 14.2 % of Air Force recruits in 2004.
Hispanics made up 17.2% of Navy recruits, 14% of Army recruits, and 11.3% of Air Force recruits in 2004.

jp

Posted by: jp at November 26, 2005 03:03 PM

Jack,
In a way I can see where you and the Republican Party get the idea about it being about money. However, during the 90’s nothing was said about SF and other schools banning military recruits for schools due to their violations of “Don’t ask, Don’t tell” policies.

Instead, the federal government passed the Solomon Amendment in 1995 which prohibited these schools from recieving federal funds from the DOD. In 1997, the federal government raised the stakes by barring all universities and schools from recieving funds because they banned recruiters from campus. However, a federal court invalidated the Solomon Amendment and as a result the Bush Administration applied the same rules to their NCLBA.

So who is zooming whom here Jack. How is it that the Republicans can state that they are for Local/State Right’s and turn around and abuse their power in the Halls of Congress? However, what is really strange is the “Total Incompetence” of Republican Leadership to address the underlaying problems that caused all this greivence(sp) in the first place.

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at November 26, 2005 04:15 PM

Dear Jack, I think part of the problem is that we have elected too many officials who have a lack of understanding of what is morally right or wrong and no sense of responsibility. You know, you could ride a blind, three-legged horse through town, and before you got to the other end of town, there would be dozens of calls wanting to know where they could get one! That is the way the public reacts.

Posted by: Daniel Younger at November 26, 2005 04:15 PM

JP

Glad you took the time. We can have a respectful discussion.

The white non-white thing in the census is just a matter of defining Hispanics. Most Hispanics are indentify as white when the Hispanic choice is not available. If you break out Hispanics as a separate group, some identify as black most white, some others but together they make up 12.8% of the population. This is not a matter of disagreement between us, but we would have to adjust the stats in the causality rates to distribute the Histpanic population. It would not change the shape of the data.

My figures are about new recruits. I don’t doubt that 35% of active duty identified themselves as minority. That still 65% non minority, which is not that different from U.S. society. Again, we should be happy that the military provides opportunities. Maybe the military is a better employer so that people choose to stay. There are more good possibitiies than bad ones.

I am aware of the national priorities project numbers and why they have problems. Read about it at http://www.heritage.org/Research/NationalSecurity/wm922.cfm.

It would seem natural for the military to recruit more among the lower middle class, but not among the poor, since they often lack HS diplomas. The officer corps is college educated by design. Nothing wrong with that either. It is a management postion. How many management trainees do firms recruit without college? No matter how you stack the statistics, you find nothing to be alarmed about makeup of the U.S. military. In fact it should be a source of great pride that we do such a good job of including so many good people. The conscript armies rarely came as close to reflecting U.S. society.

We do get to a bottom line and this is a value judgment: is the military a good career choice for a young person or is it some kind of sentence? Like everything, it depends. For some it is a wonderful choice. Others not. But it is never a sentence. We should be delighted if our military provides opportunity to poor or minority kids. In my poor white neighborhood, the only kids I knew (besides me for a different reason) who became successful were those who joined the military. The only people who would not be happy would be those who dislike the military or believe it is a bad choice. I would be happy if my kids chose to join the military and we are not poor or minority. (although my daughter was born in Latin America, so I always list her as Hispanic. It messes in a very small way with the statistics “the man” demands. Many people I know do similar things. A petty bit of civil disobedience, but fun.)

Posted by: Jack at November 26, 2005 04:18 PM

Henry

It is kind of a transaction. Local government can ignore the Feds if they don’t want the Federal money. But it is kind of odd to grab the cash and complain that you are being oppressed.

It is kind of like someone saying, “what terrible pressure did he apply?” You reply, “He offered me money and I wanted it.”

Posted by: Jack at November 26, 2005 04:21 PM

Jack:

You asked, “What is an American?” While I haven’t followed this entire thread (first, too busy eating turkey, and second, too exhausted from a tryptophan overdose to read them all), I have an answer for you:

My son is an American. As a high school senior, he applied to both the Naval Academy as well as ROTC. I asked him his reasons for wanting to do so, and his reply was twofold: Either one is a great academic and financial deal, and either one gives him the opportunity to serve his country. (Note he called it an ‘opportunity’, not a requirement)

I asked him why he felt the need to serve his country. His response: “Dad, someone needs to do it, and not enough are willing to do it.”

Needless to say, I am proud of and humbled by my son’s attitude. He has looked at how he can help his country by providing service, and also how the country offers to help him by providing an education opportunity.

I’d say that’s a pretty decent definition of an American.

Posted by: joebagodonuts at November 26, 2005 04:47 PM

I’d like to point out a fallacy in a link that Jack had about who’s in the military.

The household income thing is completely innacurate, because most new recruits come from their parents’ homes, and in poor neighborhoods, these will not be two adults and a baby, these will be a few adults and the children working part-time through high school.

The kids that do ROTC are probably living at school, perhaps not working, and therefore not making any kind of money, so although they’ll make more than NCO’s, they might appear to be starting off more poor. Needless to say, more whites will go the latter route, proportionally.

Posted by: Michelle at November 26, 2005 04:49 PM

Michelle

You have not pointed out any problems with the stats only your own preconceptions about what they might be.

My stats don’t address changes in income at all (so the NCO thing means nothing) and if your point about poor neighborhoods is accurate, that would mean income is actually understated for the poor kids.

Posted by: Jack at November 26, 2005 05:25 PM

Jack

Here are some ideas.

The Heritage Foundation like the NPP take stats and use them for their own goals at times. Thus it is important to understand the background of the stats used. The points The Heritage Foundation make do not counter act this fact:
Nearly two-thirds of all recruits (64%) were from counties with median household incomes below the US median.

Now in looking at the top twenty counties it does give an interesting perspective. There is merit in doing this but i can see how some might object to it. Both groups are using the same information for causes and are truthful in what they say but it must be thought about wisely. There are flaws in what the heritage foundation does as well. The reason looking at the top twenty by percentage is helpful is it gives a look it takes into count both the number of eligible and those recruited. Where as looking at others based off number of recruits gives a false image because it does not take into account the number of eligible. Also as we get to small communities the communities tend to have more of a common economic level.

It is interesting that the smallest amount we can look at is zip codes for an example the zip code will i live (64068) is a small city. it has 33,068 people and a median income of 53,710. Which is higher then one might think given that the Kansas City area has one of the lowest cost of living expenses for major cities. since the median means just as many make more then $53,710 as those make less then $53,710. But in my home town one can divide the town up into areas based on how much people make. We had 26 people join the services in 2004. i do not know all of them but those i do know or have heared about all living in the poorer parts of our town with a median income of around 25-30,000 dollars. [this is a rough approximation that comes from some town taxes records and house values that do not have a link sorry] Thus in counting these their median income is counted as 53,710 which is at least 20,000 greater then it is in real life.

NB: i am a youth minister in town, this is why i know many of the youth and hear about them as they move on pass high school and know about the economics of my home town because it effects the youth in the community.

[This is easy enough to confirm: there were over eight-hundred 5-digit areas with zero recruits in both 1999 and 2003, resulting in a tie for the “bottom†recruitment rate. Unsurprisingly, the average household income of these zip codes is lower than the national median. ] This is a major flaw in using stats-you must compare average to average or median to median-by comparing average to median you are comparing two different things. i have a feeling that it would be true of the median as well but wanted to stress this point.

Question: Is there people living in all zip codes or are some just made up of businesses?

Posted by: jp at November 26, 2005 06:06 PM

JP

I expect that there are some zip codes that are only business and no residents, but I don’t know.

I think the stats can be taken in a variety of ways. But if we look at the bottom line (combat deaths) we find that the demographics are distributed like America.

Anyway, lets stipulate for the sake of argument that the military recruits more in the lower middle class. Why is this bad? We have an institution that helps people grow up. It gives money for college. It gives them experience. If people stay in 20 years, they can retire with a helpful pension. It is a great social program. I know that the very idea of this makes some people crazy, but it is true. It sure beats many of the alternatives and nobody should deprive others of this opportunity.

Posted by: Jack at November 26, 2005 08:21 PM

It sounds like a good program until you realize that it’s not for defending the nation, it’s for nation-building abroad. I thank God that my brothers were out before 9/11.

And I think mandatory military service would be fine, except it won’t ever happen because politicians don’t want their kids having to serve.

This isn’t like WWII, when people were rushing to sign up, and the whole country felt a sense of obligation, this is about those who have nowhere else to go being sent overseas to nation-build.

Posted by: Michelle at November 27, 2005 02:54 AM

I find it very interesting that in discussing military recruitment and composition ever so precise proportions regarding income levels, racial minorities, zip codes, etc. are scrutinized to look for unfair bias, while universities and other institutions are asked to make overt efforts to “tilt” recruitment to provide opportunity to lower income people, and to foster multiculturalism.

Two questions: Would a university that receives federal funds be chastised if it’s minority percentage exceeded the national percentage? Anybody here know how many angels dance on the head of a pin?

Posted by: cyberguy 77 at November 27, 2005 03:51 AM

Jack,
Although I can understand the argument between Fair vs. Rumsfield Because how can Harvard Law School be found in compliance of the Solomon Amendment in 1998 by the Chief of the U.S. Army Judge Advocate Recruiting Office under a Republican lead Congress; however, in May of 2002 some Air Force official told the Dean of Law that they no longer viewed the Law School in compliance. Yet, no policy was changed. No access was denied. So what happened that the “Realm of Thought†in the Law change? President Bush’s No Child Left Behind Act and a Military Claus that was added to the Bill.

Although I am not sure of the date Tom Delay (bottom of page) stated “college policies blocking the military “are obnoxious in times of peace, but they are simply intolerable in times of war, and the equal access of our military recruiters to federally funded colleges and universities must be protected.†Is this the official stance of the Republican Party? If it seems a little extreme, his point does carry the weight required to meet the fundamental argument of the issue.

However, the plaintiff does make an excellent fundamental argument as well.
Barnea said law schools, as institutions, have a right to express their condemnation of what they perceive to be government discrimination

“The case is important because law schools make a promise to their students, gay and straight, that they will not be subject to discrimination either at the hands of the school, or at the hands of an outside entity that the school is helping,” he said. “So this suit is about vindicating the schools’ right to keep that important promise Now thanks to the Wisdom of the Founding Fathers our Nine Black Robes get to figure out what is right by the Laws of the Land.

However, or for a more forward thinking political view allow me to ask you not who do you think is right for that Power and Responsibility is Constitutionally the Supreme Court and IMO they can have that fun. No, I want you to tell me how you would structure a Federal Law that allows both sides to have their rights, but protects the consumer while not limiting them. Hard I know. Having not really thought of it before, yet upset because the way the law was out into play and the harm that it does to the Children I will refrain from voicing my anger. Nevertheless, I would like your answer and than we will talk. BTW, you know that you’ll be doing the work of your Congressional Representatives and Senators. Strange how life works is it not?

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at November 27, 2005 05:47 AM

Homosexuals have the right to recruit where ever they want and their contribution is AIDS. Moslems can recruit; as the rest of the country demonstrates how easily it will bend to their intimidation. Anti-“everything that is good” can recruit and protest and voice their “rights” to the weakening of our society and the breakdown of our nation. Why shouldn’t the military recruit? They provide employment, training, purpose for those who need that type of leadership; they build strong character into individuals and teach greater values than mere self gratification and me-first attitudes. They are willing to die for the complainers and for people around the world who curse them and attack them…they recognize the price of freedom.
I would rather have one volunteer in the military stand by me than all the liberal, anti-American complaining protesters combined.
Why should they have the right to recruit…because it is better than the alternative.

Posted by: john at November 27, 2005 06:17 AM

jack, you are a great american,thanks for expressing my true feelings, i am quite sure that the true liberal thinks the same way we do, they just dont have the nerve to stand as a true american, this is one for the gipper!

Posted by: tony at November 27, 2005 08:43 AM

John, you really need to travel the world. All you wrote is the point of view of one man who cannot understand anyone else. Notice that you have an issue with everyone other than your self. Talk about selfish. It is no wonder many people view Republicans as antisemitic, racist and narrowminded. one visit to this forum, reading the way you guys express your selves here, there is nothing but hate and disdain towards anyone who is not white, straight and christian.

Posted by: Dan at November 27, 2005 10:02 AM

JBOD,

“My son is an American. As a high school senior, he applied to both the Naval Academy as well as ROTC. I asked him his reasons for wanting to do so, and his reply was twofold: Either one is a great academic and financial deal, and either one gives him the opportunity to serve his country. (Note he called it an ‘opportunity’, not a requirement)”

You are proud of your son, and you should be.
As an officer the “financial deal” is quite good, and academicly the Academy can’t be beat.

That said, you are comparing apples and oranges. Recruiters aren’t really looking for officers (leaders come from the academies), they are looking for a “few good men” (warm bodies), and those that are recruited aren’t likely to stay in the military more than one hitch. Likewise they will be lucky if they get the “education” for the position they apply for, as the needs of the military are in a constant state of flux, and the military will place you where the demand is greatest.

Posted by: Rocky at November 27, 2005 01:10 PM

Dear Closed minded people and those who laugh at closed minded people:
Say what you want about recruiting in school, these kids are not escaping all recruiting activity. Have you been to the movies, watched t.v. or taken your sat’s lately?
I’m a 36 year old mother of 2 and have just registered to finish my degree. I’ve gotten no less than 6 recruitment e-mails, snail mails and phone calls over the past 4 months. Do you seriously think that having a recruiter in schools makes any difference? If a child/student wants to find the military they will.

Posted by: kp at November 27, 2005 03:35 PM

Kp

You are right that the SF action will have little effect. That is the point. They did it in an attempt to assert their moral superiority. We can’t let them have it. They don’t deserve it. SF took a stand calculated to cost them nothing and insult the people who keep them safe. That is just craven.

Posted by: Jack at November 27, 2005 04:23 PM

Rocky:

That said, you are comparing apples and oranges.

Actually, I didn’t compare anything. I simply answered Jack’s headline “What is an American?”

Officers do have a better deal than enlisted folks. They typically have higher qualifications as well, whether its education or service etc. Some of this comes from their backgrounds, their educational opportunities, the quality of their communities and schools etc.

It is nonetheless a good deal for people to join the military in any fashion in order to gain an education and experience. It offers them opportunities that they might not be able to get otherwise.

In my son’s case, the opportunities are experience, leadership training, management, a job right out of college, a good education, the chance to serve his country, the ability to be surrounded by high quality people, discipline etc. All of those things are available at any level of the military in different degrees perhaps, but nonetheless, they are available.

Posted by: joebagodonuts at November 27, 2005 04:49 PM

KP is right, that was part of my point. I agree with taking recruiting out of schools — which doesn’t mean an end to recruiting in the least. Just spend those dollars in another venue/medium. Go make more Top Gun movies, that’s what really works (worked on two of my brothers, for starters).

Posted by: Michelle at November 27, 2005 05:07 PM

More about the “evil liberals” not being true Americans. Why are there so many of the Republican leaders without military experience. How about all the college Republicans joining the military and serving a tour of duty in Iraq?

Posted by: S Diddy at November 27, 2005 07:53 PM

And now, let me speak directly to the young people and the students here. I wonder yet if you’ve appreciated how unusual—terribly unusual—this country of ours is?

I received a letter just before I left office from a man. I don’t know why he chose to write it, but I’m glad he did. He wrote that you can go to live in France, but you can’t become a Frenchman. You can go to live in Germany or Italy, but you can’t become a German, an Italian. He went through Turkey, Greece, Japan and other countries. but he said anyone, from any corner of the world, can come to live in the United States and become an American.

Some may call is mysticism if they will, but I cannot help but feel that there was some divine plan that placed this continent here between the two great oceans to be found by people from any corner of the earth—people who had an extra ounce of desire for freedom and some extra courage to rise up and lead their families, their relatives, their friends, their nations and come here to eventually make this country.

The truth of the matter is, if we take this crowd and if we could go through and ask the heritage, the background of every family represented here, we would probably come up with the names of every country on earth, every corner of the world, and every race. Here, is the one spot on earth where we have the brotherhood of man. And maybe as we continue with this proudly, this brotherhood of man made up from people representative of every corner of the earth, maybe one day boundaries all over the earth will disappear as people cross boundaries and find out that, yes, there is a brotherhood of man in every corner.

Thank you all and God Bless you all. — Ronald Wilson Reagan

That’s what America is.

“The American people have a great genius for splendid and unselfish actions. Into the hands of America God has placed the destinies of an afflicted mankind.” — Pope Pius XII

And that is our destiny and our burden.

Posted by: Luis Gonzalez at November 27, 2005 07:54 PM

Jo,

Sorry. That’s not new, either. It’s a law that’s been on the books since the end of WWII.

If you REALLY want to get fired up, go and read it. You’ll discover that the government has the authority to activate anybody into military service, in time of national emergency, between the ages of 17 and 49. There are tiers of eligibilty, based on recent service dates, length of prior service (the longer you’ve served and the sooner since you left; the more likely to be activated). Eventually it reaches all the way to folks who otherwise might have been considered “4F” during the draft era.

Sorry to burst your bubble. Even being disabled, if the Marine Corps decided suddenly found need of Radio Techs, SOC Team Leaders or NBC Warfare Specialists (my three MOS), I would be subject to recall -despite being a military retiree.

Just a note: I have a friend, a retired Navy Senior Chief who was one of the men who helped implement the AEGIS program in the early 1980’s. He’s 58 years old. Guess who just got reactivated for 60 days? He’s going to a refit in Portsmouth.

Posted by: Ray at November 27, 2005 08:40 PM

Jack,
You started out this post by asking what an American is and why SF and other schools want to ban our military recruiters from our schools for discrimination. A 100 posts later and not one Republican or Democrat has addressed the question head on so allow me to give it a try. First and foremost being an American means that you have No Fear in searching out for what is Right and True. In fact our societal laws are designed in such a manner to allow this to happen. Pretty smart of the Founding Fathers, huh? It is this reason that I asked you earlier on how you would construct a law that protected everyone’s rights and our national interest.

Seeing that both the Left and Right have failed to recognize that as a matter of fact our military can not and does not discriminate due to the societal role that our leaders place upon their services. From private to general all military personal are expendable, period. Point blank and Blount, as our Commander and Chief (I.e. President) orders the Pentagon to war, the Civil Servants do not think of our soldiers as Individuals. They can not afford this luxury and still do their job effectively. This reason and logic is why doctors are not allowed to operate on one of their own. Thus, precedence is well established in our societal thinking. For example, President Bush ordered our military to take out Saddam. Now, if Bush would of learned the lesson that his Father and others have about Vietnam, than he would of allowed the Military Commanders carry out their sworn duty. However, that was not to be the case. Even after the taking of Baghdad, and A General is Fired by Bush for calling for early elections. However, that is getting into a debate for another time; nevertheless, the point that I want to make is that even our Commander and Chief can not interfere with the “Combat Mode†of our Military Thinking and that most of all must be protected from both sides of the Coin of Life. Could you even imagine America not being able to wage war because it may bring harm to an Individual? How can that idea be justified? No, while violence and war is not desired the cost of Freedom and Freewill is that America must do what is Right for the Human Race regardless for that is what makes this Nation great and our Society bar none above all others. Asked anyone who has served our country.

So if no discrimination is found at the “Realm of Thinking†in the Pentagon than how and why can a ban on our Military Recruiters even exist? Bad Judges? Nope, try again for the are only allowed to answer the “Question before The Court.†However, bad attorneys asking the wrong questions based on two misplaced ideologies? Well, that question is still open for political debate and as such I will not explore that answer.

Seriously though Jack, I do understand the concerns on both sides of the issue here and if President Bush’s NCLBA stands than are you and other Americans willing to stand by and allow your Children’s Needs to be placed in the hands of this Nations Military Wants? No, an Equal and Fair settlement could and should be worked out by both sides of this argument that allows those few students that want to pursue a military career the opportunity to do so without the Public interfering with the Individual’s need to stand up and fight to be Right Regardless. And both sides need to be thankful that they do for they take on the role of some Mighty Big Shoes.

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at November 27, 2005 09:53 PM