Rangel is at it again, and like usual no one is taking him seriously.
He doesn't want a draft of course, he's just trying to make a point about social justice.
Anyhow, to the extent that poorer people join the military it's because they see it as an opportunity. JUST like anyone else. The Heritage Foundation numbers compared geographical demographic areas, by fifths, and found that only something like 13% come from the poorest area (20% of the population by definition). High school drop outs or anyone with police involvement or who can't pass a urine test... don't get in.
I think that the reason why blacks are killed in Iraq at lower than their numbers in the military is that, particularly in the Army, you get to chose your MOS and blacks don't chose combat specialties at an equal rate as they enlist. My guess... maybe there's numbers someplace to test it. If blacks are viewing military service as an opportunity it makes sense to chose something with more of a civilian application than infantry.
Which would go for all poorer people of any race who primarly join for civilian application of their training. Is it possible that the breakdown of those going into exclusively "military" jobs are from higher economic backgrounds, no matter their race? It would be an interesting question.
Rangel's draft and his reasoning are insulting to each person's right to make decisions about their own life. Unless blacks aren't qualified?
People with NO options, don't go... not of any race. Anyone who can get in the military does have other options... they've kept their nose clean and finished high school. If they decide that among the options they have that the military offers them the prefered opportunity, they should be able to make that choice without having someone like Rangel or people who think like him, try to tell them that he knows better than they do about what is good for their lives.
All anti-recruiting is exactly that...I'll decide for you, what is best, because I know better than you.
It's insulting. It's controlling. It's not "liberal" in any real sense of the word.
From the earlier linked page:
He doesn't want a draft of course, he's just trying to make a point about social justice.
Anyhow, to the extent that poorer people join the military it's because they see it as an opportunity. JUST like anyone else. The Heritage Foundation numbers compared geographical demographic areas, by fifths, and found that only something like 13% come from the poorest area (20% of the population by definition). High school drop outs or anyone with police involvement or who can't pass a urine test... don't get in.
I think that the reason why blacks are killed in Iraq at lower than their numbers in the military is that, particularly in the Army, you get to chose your MOS and blacks don't chose combat specialties at an equal rate as they enlist. My guess... maybe there's numbers someplace to test it. If blacks are viewing military service as an opportunity it makes sense to chose something with more of a civilian application than infantry.
Which would go for all poorer people of any race who primarly join for civilian application of their training. Is it possible that the breakdown of those going into exclusively "military" jobs are from higher economic backgrounds, no matter their race? It would be an interesting question.
Rangel's draft and his reasoning are insulting to each person's right to make decisions about their own life. Unless blacks aren't qualified?
People with NO options, don't go... not of any race. Anyone who can get in the military does have other options... they've kept their nose clean and finished high school. If they decide that among the options they have that the military offers them the prefered opportunity, they should be able to make that choice without having someone like Rangel or people who think like him, try to tell them that he knows better than they do about what is good for their lives.
All anti-recruiting is exactly that...I'll decide for you, what is best, because I know better than you.
It's insulting. It's controlling. It's not "liberal" in any real sense of the word.
From the earlier linked page:
Representative Rangel's theory is that if all citizens faced equal prospects of dying in a conflict, support for that conflict would have to pass a higher standard. This theory assumes that the privileged classes would be less willing to commit the nation to war if that conflict involved personal, familial, or class bloodshed. It also assumes that the existing volunteers are either ignorant or lack other options—that is, they are involuntary participants. One way to test this thesis is to explore the demographic patterns of enlisted recruits before and after the initiation of the global war on terrorism on September 11, 2001.
Comments