So there's this Occupy Wall Street protest in Manhattan today
- Thread starter Charlie Don't Surf
- Start date
Ah, so during that time the majority of service members were poor and stupid, with no other options in life?
Of people who were drafted? Yes. Draft ages are between 18-25. One of the few things that could get you out of the draft was being enrolled in college. So yeah... it was mostly kids too poor, stupid, or poorly connected to get out of it.
*cough*fivedefermentscheney*cough*
Dave
Staff member
[citation needed]Obama didn't even bother to defer it - he dodged it completely!
Obama was born in 1961 and Nixon abandoned the draft in 1973 and Ford abolished it in 1975. Obama "dodged" it by being 12 at the time when it was abandoned and 14 when it was fully abolished. At least I assume that was the joke Stienman was going for. Would have been funnier if our last 2 presidents hadn't been a real draft dodger and a guy who spent his service in the reserves.
Hey at least you got to avoid life-destroying torture.
I'm thankful Shego never got into any armed force, personally.
Necronic
Staff member
Yeah, that article is....pretty poorly written (as a research/stats article). Here's the basic argument:
Poor people list economic reasons as a motivation for joining at a higher rate than wealthy people. There are no numbers for this given by the way, just racial demographics. Those demographics show that ~50% of blacks, ~40% of latinos, and ~20% of caucasians join for economic reasons.
From this, and an assumption of a strong correlation between race and income (not explicity mentioned by the way), you can say that the army is primarily from poor families. Why they didn't simply use economic data is beyond me, because this isn't a good way to make that argument at all.
Then comes the conclusion: "It is difficult for young people in settings of poverty who want further education or job training to refuse these offers."
Why? That is not the only conclusion. You could also argue that a person coming from an impovrished background sees the military as a better option than the other options available. The article touches on that slightly
"While some enter the military because they have chosen it from an array of meaningful opportunities, others enter the military because it appears as the only path available out of a setting of poverty. For these enlistees, the realities of poverty and racism make military service an option they can hardly refuse rather than something they have freely chosen. "
So they acknowledge that there are complex metrics for decision making involved, but then just tell us to ignore them because they "can hardly refuse". Really? Why can't they refuse?
The only real conclusion you can make from that data is that minorities cite economic reasons for joining in larger numbers than caucasians. Now the Why? of that is a much more complex question.
-------------
Then there's some other interesting stats that the article mentions, but refuses to follow its own logic in applying (this being the strong link between racial demographic, economic position, and enlistment).
"Hispanic enlistments are still lagging well behind their percent of the population".
This goes against the idea that race/poverty are such a primary cause of enlistment, because if it was then this number would be higher.
"African Americans are currently joining the military nearly in proportion to their percentage in the population, a sharp decline from earlier enlistment rates"
That's interesting, because African Americans are going through a pretty serious increase in poverty rates right now due to the recession. Yet their enlistment numbers are dwindling.
And here's the best one. The one that the article doesn't even include in its chart, I had to dig the numbers out myself.
Caucasians enlistment rates have increased to above their proportion of the population. In fact they are higher, relative to their civ pop, than either African Americans OR Hispanics. I find it incredibly telling that the previous graph includes the caucasian numbers but this one decides not to.
--------------
This isn't to say that I don't agree that the military appeals more to the poor in a lot of cases. I just find that article to be complete trash.
GasBandit
Staff member
Before 2008, I would have probably agreed with him, actually. It's easy to have a rough time through no fault of your own during a recession though, especially one as deep as the one we've been through (it's supposedly over now, remember?).
But until the wheels came off, outside of tragedies such as sickness or injury, the only barrier to a person's success were their own decisions. We experienced upward income mobility on an unprecedented scale.
And I guess you could still say it's true - the big causes of our current woes are the shortsighted support of "progressive" policies that attempted to use fiscal slight-of-hand to legislate people into homeownership that they had absolutely no way of affording. It's the big-spending pie-in-the-sky belief that we can legislate reality into being what we want it to be, and that we can just "decide" to eliminate all hardship and need for effort, that got us where we are today. And that's a mentality that seems to be very predominant among the "occupiers" of wall street, if their list of demands is any indication. Did they really think that 20 dollars an hour is some kind of human right? Where does it come from?
But until the wheels came off, outside of tragedies such as sickness or injury, the only barrier to a person's success were their own decisions. We experienced upward income mobility on an unprecedented scale.
And I guess you could still say it's true - the big causes of our current woes are the shortsighted support of "progressive" policies that attempted to use fiscal slight-of-hand to legislate people into homeownership that they had absolutely no way of affording. It's the big-spending pie-in-the-sky belief that we can legislate reality into being what we want it to be, and that we can just "decide" to eliminate all hardship and need for effort, that got us where we are today. And that's a mentality that seems to be very predominant among the "occupiers" of wall street, if their list of demands is any indication. Did they really think that 20 dollars an hour is some kind of human right? Where does it come from?
wrong
GasBandit
Staff member
wrong
Necronic
Staff member
Left.
....
Also why is anything Herman Cain says news? He's about as relevant as a pet rock and has the intelligence to match. Hell I think Lyndon Larouche is a more viable candidate.
GasBandit
Staff member
He won the florida straw poll. By a lot. Historically, whoever wins the florida straw poll is almost always the eventual nominee.
Necronic
Staff member
Yeah, except this time because there is no freaking way he'll win.
Also the fact that Florida predicts anything is frightening. Because, you know, that would imply Florida isn't one of the most disturbing places in the US.
Edit: And to be fair to Cain its not that I don't think the dude has some points, and he is clearly intelligent, but he lacks the level of political smarts to win the presidency. He has gotten *way* too many direct quotes that sound really really bad, and if he actually won the primary the flood-gates would open as people dug up all the crazy stuff he has said over the years.
Also the fact that Florida predicts anything is frightening. Because, you know, that would imply Florida isn't one of the most disturbing places in the US.
Edit: And to be fair to Cain its not that I don't think the dude has some points, and he is clearly intelligent, but he lacks the level of political smarts to win the presidency. He has gotten *way* too many direct quotes that sound really really bad, and if he actually won the primary the flood-gates would open as people dug up all the crazy stuff he has said over the years.
Right.
GasBandit
Staff member
Sorry, wait, I was wrong... not "almost," turns out so far the Florida straw poll has predicted 100% of the GOP's nominees. Granted, it's only the 5th one (it was started in 1979).
Guess we'll see if it holds up. One thing is sure, however, it's suddenly made a whole lot more "political" people suddenly sit up and take him more seriously now.
Necronic
Staff member
Fair enough, there's something there to pay attention to thats for sure. It reminds me of Ross Perot a bit. Businessman turned politician trying to bring a no-nonsense business approach to governance. Perhaps what its stating is that the republicans need to focus more on the economic side of their party and less on the conservative morality side of their party.
But if he wins the primary I will eat my hat (or something hat shaped that I can digest.)
But if he wins the primary I will eat my hat (or something hat shaped that I can digest.)
GasBandit
Staff member
In other words, become Libertarians?
Problem is, even on the fiscal side, Republicans have trouble walking the walk. They say they want to reduce government, but they never do. They don't want to reduce it, they just want their turn running it.
GasBandit
Staff member
Done and done. This new rapport of ours is so much more efficient.
My new goal in life, efficient rapport.
The guy who is leading the local MN version said on NPR yesterday that their goal was the destruction of the capitalist system. He also said there was room in their movement for anyone, conservatives, liberals, tea party, etc... you know, as long as they all agree on that main point. So... you know, room for everyone. 
