Rich Kids go to College; Poor Ones go to Baghdad

[Capitalist Lawyer]

This is the same sort of reverse agit-prop that surfaced in Vietnam, about blacks being killed at a higher ration than white soldiers.

Two simple points show what little of an argument this article presents.

(1.) Colleges in this country are filled with poor and middle class students. They represent an extremely large majority. Wealthy students are a minority.
(2.) The US Armed Services makes up a very small minority of the career path to poor people.

Which implies:

(1.) College isn't limited to wealthy children, poor and middle class children are getting in as well.
(2.) There are other options outside of the armed services, so poor children have no reason to go into Iraq if they choose not to.



Rich Kids Go to College, Poor Ones to Baghdad
By Tom Woodward
The New Statesman

Monday 06 December 2004 Edition

You're a 14-year-old high school student in the United States, and it's time to choose your electives for the next academic year. What catches your eye? History, music, physical education- or how about the Junior Reserve Officers' Training Corps (JROTC)? The program, partly funded by the US military, and taught by retired armed forces personnel, is styled as an improving educational experience, and couched in the jargon of personal development. Its purported aim is to "motivate young people to be better citizens", and on the curriculum are communication skills, leadership, physical fitness, history and citizenship, as well as drug abuse prevention. It also involves military drills with real and dummy firearms, and marksmanship training. (Funding for some of these programs comes from an obvious source: in late 2003, the JROTC at Channelview High School, near Houston, Texas, received a $14,000 grant from the Friends of the National Rifle Association.)

JROTC, which has a membership of 470,000 high school students, is widely seen as a thinly disguised recruitment program for the military. More serious concerns, however, are about the way JROTC, and similar schemes such as the National Guard Leadership Education program, target children at public (state) schools in poor areas. In early 2003, the chief executive of the School District of Philadelphia, Paul Vallas, announced plans for a free-standing military high school and an increase in the number of JROTC programs in schools across the city from eight to 22. John Grant, president of the Philadelphia chapter of Veterans for Peace, led the protest against the plan: "The idea of moving military education down the schools gets pretty spooky to me. It's not literally a tool of recruitment. But it is a tool of indoctrination. I would like these kids to have more options, like college."

As in Philadelphia, public schools in Chicago are filled overwhelmingly with poor, non-white students. Of the latter's 93 high schools, 44 run a JROTC program. And even the 11-14 age group gets military influence: 20 of Chicago's middle schools offer Cadet Corps, a modified version of JROTC. This is not to mention the seven military academies that operate as "schools within schools" in Chicago. Before 2002, there was a cap of 3,500 on JROTC programs; in 2002, this cap was removed by the Defense Authorization Act.

In April this year, residents of Ayer, Massachusetts, a working-class town, expressed their displeasure at Ayer School's adoption of the National Guard program. As one Ayer resident, James Nehrin, put it: "It is unfair to the kids in my town that they need to risk their lives to get ahead. It is as if the rich kids go to college and the poor kids go to Baghdad."

The Bush administration signed the No Child Left Behind Act in January 2002 - which it hailed as an important social initiative. In the small print is a provision that threatens the withdrawal of federal funding from any high school which refuses to provide students' details to military recruiters. Section 9528, Armed Forces Recruiter Access to Students and Student Recruiting Information, enables the military to make unsolicited contact with children as young as 11.

Outside school, any internet-savvy teenager can download "America's Army", the official computer game of the US army, which has more than four million registered users online. The answers to FAQs on the accompanying website are penned by Colonel E Casey Wardynski, of West Point Academy, and make instructive reading. Asked: "Is this a recruitment tool?", he responds: "The army's success in attracting high-potential young adults is essential to building the world's premier land force . . . the game is designed to substitute virtual experiences for vicarious insights." The colonel also advocates exposing children as young as 13 to "America's Army", on the grounds that it is educational: "They ['kids'] need to know that the army is engaged around the world to defeat terrorist forces bent on the destruction of America and our freedoms."

Between September 2002 and September 2003, 11,309 17-year-olds signed enlistment contracts with the army. In January 2003, the army pledged to "not assign or deploy soldiers less than 18 years of age, outside the continental US, Puerto Rico or territories or possessions of the United States". Despite the amendment, 62 Americans aged 17 served in Afghanistan and Iraq during 2003 and 2004. There were 15 fatalities among 18-year-olds, all in Iraq, all from the army and the marines.


Source (http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/120304K.shtml)

[Delirium]

Originally posted by Capitalist [email protected] 28 2005, 12:53 AM

(2.) The US Armed Services makes up a very small minority of the career path to poor people.

Though poor people make up a overwhelming majortity of the US armed services.

[Emperor Sam]

Originally posted by Datura inoxia+Dec 28 2005, 01:03 AM--> (Datura inoxia @ Dec 28 2005, 01:03 AM)
Capitalist [email protected] 28 2005, 12:53 AM

(2.) The US Armed Services makes up a very small minority of the career path to poor people.

Though poor people make up a overwhelming majortity of the US armed services. [/b]
This is a myth.

[which doctor]

Originally posted by Emperor Sam+Dec 27 2005, 08:10 PM--> (Emperor Sam @ Dec 27 2005, 08:10 PM)
Originally posted by Datura [email protected] 28 2005, 01:03 AM

Capitalist [email protected] 28 2005, 12:53 AM

(2.) The US Armed Services makes up a very small minority of the career path to poor people.

Though poor people make up a overwhelming majortity of the US armed services.
This is a myth. [/b]
Give me proof.

I need sources.

[Emperor Sam]

Originally posted by Fist of Blood+Dec 28 2005, 01:11 AM--> (Fist of Blood @ Dec 28 2005, 01:11 AM)
Originally posted by Emperor [email protected] 27 2005, 08:10 PM

Originally posted by Datura [email protected] 28 2005, 01:03 AM

Capitalist [email protected] 28 2005, 12:53 AM

(2.) The US Armed Services makes up a very small minority of the career path to poor people.

Though poor people make up a overwhelming majortity of the US armed services.
This is a myth.
Give me proof.

I need sources. [/b]
The burden of proof is not on me, my friend, it is on the one that made the original claim. I have nothing to prove, as I know the truth.

[Capitalist Lawyer]

http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2004-11/900034/totalrecruitsrepresent2.gif


Do rich people enlist? Probably not...the odds are good that their opportunities don't involve a lot of manual labor. I'm sure basic training won't appeal to most of them.

But this society is hardly unique...the middle and lower classes have almost always supplied the bulk of that society's warriors.

The difference between today's soldier and those of wars past is that these are, on average, the best educated in our history. The other difference is that all of them are volunteers...they know what they're getting into.

So what was your point?

[which doctor]

Oh lookie......


Originally posted by Washington Post
Many of today's recruits are financially strapped, with nearly half coming from lower-middle-class to poor households, according to new Pentagon data based on Zip codes and census estimates of mean household income. Nearly two-thirds of Army recruits in 2004 came from counties in which median household income is below the U.S. median.

Original Source (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/03/AR2005110302528.html)

Take that evil cappie!

[Emperor Sam]

As usual, typical leftist rhetoric never lets the facts get in the way of ludicrous and agenda-driven claims.

Fortunately, I have again done your homework for you.

http://www.heritage.org/Research/NationalS...fm&PageID=85083 (http://www.heritage.org/Research/NationalSecurity/loader.cfm?url=/commonspot/security/getfile.cfm&PageID=85083)

Concede defeat at your convenience.

[Emperor Sam]

Originally posted by Fist of Blood+Dec 28 2005, 01:18 AM--> (Fist of Blood @ Dec 28 2005, 01:18 AM) Oh lookie......


Washington Post
Many of today's recruits are financially strapped, with nearly half coming from lower-middle-class to poor households, according to new Pentagon data based on Zip codes and census estimates of mean household income. Nearly two-thirds of Army recruits in 2004 came from counties in which median household income is below the U.S. median.

Original Source (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/03/AR2005110302528.html)

Take that evil cappie! [/b]
LOL,LOL

http://www.heritage.org/Research/NationalS...fm&PageID=85083 (http://www.heritage.org/Research/NationalSecurity/loader.cfm?url=/commonspot/security/getfile.cfm&PageID=85083)

I've said it before, and pretty recently at that. The Washington Post is a dirty leftist rag that simply lies to fit their liberal agenda.

What more proof is needed?

[which doctor]

Your Heritage website has a fuckin' picture of that Thatcher hag on the front page. Talk about right wing propaganda. None of these may display the real truth, but I know that mine would be closer.

[DaCuBaN]

"Lies, Damn Lies and Statistics"


(1.) Colleges in this country are filled with poor and middle class students. They represent an extremely large majority. Wealthy students are a minority.
Correct: However, Poor and middle class people make up a majority of the population of the country as a whole, and as such the statistic is nullified.


(2.) The US Armed Services makes up a very small minority of the career path to poor people.
Correct: It also probably makes up an equal portion of rich kids in relation to the overall population statistics. Again, nullified.


(1.) College isn't limited to wealthy children, poor and middle class children are getting in as well.
False: As the statistics above have been written off, this is based on false evidence.


(2.) There are other options outside of the armed services, so poor children have no reason to go into Iraq if they choose not to.

Correct: However combined with the patriotic nonsense you yanks throw at your kids it seems like the right thing for them to do.

All in all, you've shown me nothing but Lies, Damn Lies and Statistics. And you made me quote a yank!

[Delirium]

Ha! you give me info from the heritage foundation!

[Severian]

Originally posted by Capitalist [email protected] 27 2005, 06:53 PM
This is the same sort of reverse agit-prop that surfaced in Vietnam, about blacks being killed at a higher ration than white soldiers.

Two simple points show what little of an argument this article presents.
Actually, no. If you want to refute this article, you need to give statistics.

[Emperor Sam]

Originally posted by Fist of [email protected] 28 2005, 01:28 AM
Your Heritage website has a fuckin' picture of that Thatcher hag on the front page. Talk about right wing propaganda. None of these may display the real truth, but I know that mine would be closer.
Your one broad, general, ticky-tack paragraph from the Washington Post beats a fully published demographic study with cited sources?

I don't think so.

[Emperor Sam]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2005, 01:29 AM
"Lies, Damn Lies and Statistics"


(1.) Colleges in this country are filled with poor and middle class students. They represent an extremely large majority. Wealthy students are a minority.
Correct: However, Poor and middle class people make up a majority of the population of the country as a whole, and as such the statistic is nullified.


(2.) The US Armed Services makes up a very small minority of the career path to poor people.
Correct: It also probably makes up an equal portion of rich kids in relation to the overall population statistics. Again, nullified.


(1.) College isn't limited to wealthy children, poor and middle class children are getting in as well.
False: As the statistics above have been written off, this is based on false evidence.


(2.) There are other options outside of the armed services, so poor children have no reason to go into Iraq if they choose not to.

Correct: However combined with the patriotic nonsense you yanks throw at your kids it seems like the right thing for them to do.

All in all, you've shown me nothing but Lies, Damn Lies and Statistics. And you made me quote a yank!
Nice try, DacuBan, but this is desperate at best. You can't simply nullify stats because you want to nullify them.

Forgive me if I subscribe to this published and cited study instead of your meaningless refutations.

[Emperor Sam]

Originally posted by Severian+Dec 28 2005, 01:41 AM--> (Severian @ Dec 28 2005, 01:41 AM)
Capitalist [email protected] 27 2005, 06:53 PM
This is the same sort of reverse agit-prop that surfaced in Vietnam, about blacks being killed at a higher ration than white soldiers.

Two simple points show what little of an argument this article presents.
Actually, no. If you want to refute this article, you need to give statistics. [/b]
I did.

[which doctor]

Originally posted by Emperor Sam+Dec 27 2005, 08:48 PM--> (Emperor Sam @ Dec 27 2005, 08:48 PM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2005, 01:41 AM

Capitalist [email protected] 27 2005, 06:53 PM
This is the same sort of reverse agit-prop that surfaced in Vietnam, about blacks being killed at a higher ration than white soldiers.

Two simple points show what little of an argument this article presents.
Actually, no. If you want to refute this article, you need to give statistics.
I did. [/b]
He was talking to Capitalist Lawyer.

I really hate these hardline capitalists, they can't be converted. They just will never see the truth.

[Emperor Sam]

Originally posted by Fist of Blood+Dec 28 2005, 01:50 AM--> (Fist of Blood @ Dec 28 2005, 01:50 AM)
Originally posted by Emperor [email protected] 27 2005, 08:48 PM

Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2005, 01:41 AM

Capitalist [email protected] 27 2005, 06:53 PM
This is the same sort of reverse agit-prop that surfaced in Vietnam, about blacks being killed at a higher ration than white soldiers.

Two simple points show what little of an argument this article presents.
Actually, no. If you want to refute this article, you need to give statistics.
I did.
He was talking to Capitalist Lawyer.

I really hate these hardline capitalists, they can't be converted. They just will never see the truth. [/b]
Come on, FoB, the facts are with us this time. The idea that the US recruits the poor and minorities in disprapotionate numbers has always been a myth, and has been refuted a myriad of times.

It is you leftists who refuse to see the truth, even in the face of hard data!

[Delirium]

Originally posted by Emperor Sam+Dec 28 2005, 01:54 AM--> (Emperor Sam @ Dec 28 2005, 01:54 AM)
Originally posted by Fist of [email protected] 28 2005, 01:50 AM

Originally posted by Emperor [email protected] 27 2005, 08:48 PM

Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2005, 01:41 AM

Capitalist [email protected] 27 2005, 06:53 PM
This is the same sort of reverse agit-prop that surfaced in Vietnam, about blacks being killed at a higher ration than white soldiers.

Two simple points show what little of an argument this article presents.
Actually, no. If you want to refute this article, you need to give statistics.
I did.
He was talking to Capitalist Lawyer.

I really hate these hardline capitalists, they can't be converted. They just will never see the truth.
Come on, FoB, the facts are with us this time. The idea that the US recruits the poor and minorities in disprapotionate numbers has always been a myth, and has been refuted a myriad of times.

It is you leftists who refuse to see the truth, even in the face of hard data! [/b]
Hard data doesn't come in the form of statistics from a ultra-conservative think tank.

[which doctor]

More hard facts.


Originally posted by CIA Factbook+--> (CIA Factbook)Ethnic groups:
white 81.7%, black 12.9%, Asian 4.2%, Amerindian and Alaska native 1%, native Hawaiian and other Pacific islander 0.2% (2003 est.) [/b]
http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/us.html


Originally posted by [email protected]
A recent Dept. of Defense study did find that 21% of military personnel are black
http://www.discriminations.us/storage/001836.html


Originally from the New York Tmes
A survey of the American military's endlessly compiled and analyzed demographics paints a picture of a fighting force that is anything but a cross section of America. With minorities overrepresented and the wealthy and the underclass essentially absent, with political conservatism ascendant in the officer corps and Northeasterners fading from the ranks, America's 1.4 million-strong military seems to resemble the makeup of a two-year commuter or trade school outside Birmingham or Biloxi far more than that of a ghetto or barrio or four-year university in Boston.

http://www.rcnv.org/rcnv/archives/2003/mil...emographics.htm (http://www.rcnv.org/rcnv/archives/2003/militarydemographics.htm)

That's nearly twice as many black in the service then in the normal population.

And don't tell me that "oh, well thats leftist trash".

[spartafc]

Colleges in this country are filled with poor and middle class students. They represent an extremely large majority. Wealthy students are a minority.
- Capitalist Lawyer


"In its February 2001 report, Access Denied, the [b]Advisory Committee on Student Financial Assistance[b] ("an independent source of advice and counsel to Congress and the Secretary of Education on student financial aid policy") discloses that college-entry and participation rates of lower-income students continue to lag far behind rates for middle- and upper-income students. The report indicates that this gap between the college-participation rates of lower- and upper-income students remains at approximately the same level as it was more than 30 years ago."
- http://www.usafunds.org/about_usa_funds/hi...al_barriers.htm (http://www.usafunds.org/about_usa_funds/higher_ed_access/financial_barriers.htm)

I'm quoting an article on an independent report by an org that advises the counsel of congress and the secretary of education. Who are you quoting? Tom Woodward. Who is Tom Woodward quoting? Who the fuck is Tom Woodward? I don't know. And he isn't sourcing anything. He does have quotes from Ayer resident, James Nehrin though. And that's good enough for me!

[Publius]

Can anyone here debate without poisoning the well?

I guess not.

I guess it's easier than actually, you know, combatting the claims.

[spartafc]

Can anyone here debate without poisoning the well?
I guess it's easier than actually, you know, combating the claims.

who's "poisoning the well"?

I'm just waiting for some reasoned arguing to - y'know - combat my claims with regards to education. Preferably sourced factual research material, not anecdotal conjecture.

[OkaCrisis]

Originally posted by Capitalist [email protected] 27 2005, 08:53 PM
(1.) Colleges in this country are filled with poor and middle class students. They represent an extremely large majority. Wealthy students are a minority.
I think that what is more important to point out here is the proportion of low and upper class students attending American Universities.

No future academic, doctor, lawyer (corporate or otherwise), or politician is going to go to college. I believe that the future of societies is shaped by the people who have access to the kinds of educations that allow them to exert influence on the world, via knowledge production and public service.

The majority of the population is going to College to learn trades, so they will become no more than regular working whores, to toil under the capitalist wage-slavery system.

When the people recieve educations that allow them to criticse and analyse the systems of oppression that operate around them, they are more likely to rebel against those systems in the name of some alternative. Capitalism stifles revolutionary potential by limiting access to higher education (that might inform the masses of alternative systems), making sure that people coming from lower-class backgrounds never recieve the education they need to make informed decisions about politics and the world around them, meanwhile providing inroads for the already-rich to impose their (already dominant) views of the world onto society at large.

What a sad state of affairs, where people who are 'smart' and rich are allowed to reach their full academic potentials, while those who are 'smart' and not rich (and so might already have some alternative views about things) are simply trained to be cogs in a machine, their lives and potentials wasted away.

There are just as many 'smart' poor kids/people as there are 'smart' rich ones. Why limit higher education to only the small minority of the population who can afford it?

[encephalon]

The poor don't go to college. The middle class does.

In any case, I fail to see what it matters whether the poor are indoctrinated in a "college" to work under the same factory roof their parents did in the end.

Oh, or maybe they could sell car insurance, provided they worked in a factory for long enough without getting laid off in order to pay for the dental work from years of eating boxed food and ramen noodles as a kid and their deteriorating health all around.. because a man or woman without a **terrific** smile just can't sell insurance for seven dollars an hour and expect to make a profit for their overlords.

Or maybe they can manage a corporate pizza place with their snazzy degree! Oh, the joys!

Of course it is required that the working class increasingly be educated (or rather indoctrinated with some technical knowledge interspersed between propaganda). Otherwise, the workers wouldn't be able to operate the increasingly complex machinery that capitalists depend upon to make greater and greater profit.

And if you didn't notice, the chart there says the vast majority of military recruits come from households that make less than 60k a year. By american standards, that isn't exactly bathing in gold coins. 99% of all of it goes straight back to the bourgeoisie just to stay alive and drive to work. That is, if they aren't in poverty from the 30k+ in student loans it took to get their wonderful lower management pizza job.

Go capitalism! The best thing to happen to workers since chaining children to pneumatic presses or sending them out in coal mines to die for a penny.

Oh wait, that was capitalism.. my mistake.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Capitalist Lawyer
But this society is hardly unique...the middle and lower classes have almost always supplied the bulk of that society's warriors. -- emphasis added.

I don't know how many people spotted CL's verbal slight-of-hand there.

The word "warrior" is a "high prestige term"...originating in societies where professional soldiers were a kind of "aristocracy".

That's not what modern soldiers are.

They are, if you want to be polite about it, mercenaries.

If you just want to use plain English, they are hired thugs or professional killers.

No different, in function, from a Mafia "hit man".

This can all be "covered up" with references to "patriotism", "military sub-culture", "aggressive government recruitment", and even "economic necessity". Those are the "explanations" that will be heard from those who "sign-up" and "re-enlist".

But, as Marx never tired of pointing out: you are what you do!

If your social function -- your "job" -- is indiscriminate brutality up to and including mass murder -- then that's what you become.

Your "class background" is essentially irrelevant because you are now part of a new "caste"...those who have sworn to put their lives "on the line" in defense of the despotism of capital.

Thus the "way" of the "modern warrior" -- loot, rape, torture, and murder.

Funny thing is, when they talk among themselves, they all believe that they are "inherently superior" to all "civilians"...even the ones who sign their paychecks.

Their mentality is fundamentally fascist.

And, sooner or later, really bad news for any civilians who rely on them for "protection".

Even rich civilians.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[DaCuBaN]

You can't simply nullify stats because you want to nullify them.

The rich are a minority, the poor a majority and my points still stand. The rest is simple deduction - and you are practicing evasion.

[Publius]

who's "poisoning the well"?


Nearly everyone.

In this thread and the Cuba one.

"I don't like that website, so I'm going to ignore it"

"Those claims are contradictory to my dogma, that website must be false"

You can't just ignore something out of hand, you have to have a reason for discounting it.

For example, 'news' from the Pravda can be assumed false or 'critiqued' as one may say. We can discount Pravda because of the numerous examples of when it die lie/mislead.

That's a bad source so discounting it is not fallacious, necessarily, but in this case, you have to actually prove the bias, or prove that the facts are false.

None is doing that.



I'm just waiting for some reasoned arguing to - y'know - combat my claims with regards to education. Preferably sourced factual research material, not anecdotal conjecture.

Your claim -- that the rich are more likely to go to college than the poor -- is obvious.

[Counter-Insurgent]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2005, 02:26 PM


who's "poisoning the well"?


Nearly everyone.

In this thread and the Cuba one.

"I don't like that website, so I'm going to ignore it"

"Those claims are contradictory to my dogma, that website must be false"

You can't just ignore something out of hand, you have to have a reason for discounting it.

For example, 'news' from the Pravda can be assumed false or 'critiqued' as one may say. We can discount Pravda because of the numerous examples of when it die lie/mislead.

That's a bad source so discounting it is not fallacious, necessarily, but in this case, you have to actually prove the bias, or prove that the facts are false.

None is doing that.



I'm just waiting for some reasoned arguing to - y'know - combat my claims with regards to education. Preferably sourced factual research material, not anecdotal conjecture.

Your claim -- that the rich are more likely to go to college than the poor -- is obvious.
First of all, yes its me, CI.

Second, this is a good point.

However, I would say that my source is the most comprehensive yet listed. Most opposing sources have been snippets from the Post and NY Times. Isn't is rather ostensible among reasonable people that a published study trumps broad editorializing?

Anyway, I officially refute the NY Times' credibility. They've been called out for leftist bias on a myriad of occaisions:

http://www.timeswatch.org/

[spartafc]

That's a bad source so discounting it is not fallacious, necessarily, but in this case, you have to actually prove the bias, or prove that the facts are false. None is doing that.

the "source" provided has failed to source its claims, it makes an initial proposition and then fails to subsequently account for this. This is a lesson in the art of critical reading. How can we access the validity of an article? Sourcing is a large part of it. As the author of the piece - it is his responsibility to try and convince me of his argument with reference to relevant sociological research. It doesn't take a genius to see that simply providing anecdotal quotes from residents and a teaching-principle does not make a valid piece of journalist/sociological research! Surely you can see that - even if you don't want to on account of your own political views.


Your claim -- that the rich are more likely to go to college than the poor -- is obvious.

And yet it's a claim disputed by the original poster - who started this post, and who I am addressing.

[Capitalist Lawyer]

That's nearly twice as many black in the service then in the normal population.

And don't tell me that "oh, well thats leftist trash".

Good. Then maybe we need to put a racial quota on the armed forces, and then if we reach capacity on blacks, we shut the door in their face...and the ones that get rejected, we'll send to your neighborhood, to hang out and sing kumbaya with you.

Note: What your study doesn't reflect is, the makeup of the ENTIRE armed forces, including the army, navy, airforce, marines, and their reserve and national guard components.

[Rummy Deuce]

Well, even if this was true (and it looks like it is still debatable), I think that the military is among the best options for minorities and the impoverished. I have known several individuals who would have otherwise turned to a life of street crime or drugs, and the US military really helped them become mature adults with a sense of responsibility and acheivement.

I can't remember one person who ever thought it was a mistake. I'm sure there are those people who would say it was a mistake, but they are probably few and far between.

The US military also has a good record (in the last 30-40 years) of promoting minorities to higher positions at much better rate than corporate America, though that may have to do with proportion.

[Guerrilla22]

Originally posted by Rummy [email protected] 3 2006, 10:58 PM
Well, even if this was true (and it looks like it is still debatable), I think that the military is among the best options for minorities and the impoverished. I have known several individuals who would have otherwise turned to a life of street crime or drugs, and the US military really helped them become mature adults with a sense of responsibility and acheivement.

I can't remember one person who ever thought it was a mistake. I'm sure there are those people who would say it was a mistake, but they are probably few and far between.

The US military also has a good record (in the last 30-40 years) of promoting minorities to higher positions at much better rate than corporate America, though that may have to do with proportion.
Its a good opprotunity for them to get shot. <_< One must look deeped into the subject. Why is it that minorities become involved in so called criminal activity and sucumb to poverty in the first place? Is it because minorities are just stupid and can&#39;t figure out how to live in a"civillized manner"?

No, its due to a lack of opprotunity stemming from a country and world for that manner, that perpetuates a system were some people are privalleged and some are not. Inequality exist to an extreme degree in the US. Cappies tend to ignore this fact so often, because without inequality capitalism can&#39;t work.

[Sabocat]

Capitalist Lawyer

Good. Then maybe we need to put a racial quota on the armed forces, and then if we reach capacity on blacks, we shut the door in their face...and the ones that get rejected, we&#39;ll send to your neighborhood, to hang out and sing kumbaya with you.


Because we all know, that if blacks aren&#39;t in the military killing and being killed, then they&#39;d be rampaging through nice white neighborhoods right? Thank goodness that there is the military to keep them from "hanging out and singing kumbaya" in "our neighborhoods".

You vile piece of right wing racist filth. Enjoy your warning point.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2005, 03:33 AM
Can anyone here debate without poisoning the well?

I guess not.

I guess it&#39;s easier than actually, you know, combatting the claims.
People have shown the flaw in Lawyer&#39;s claim, he just then says "na-uh, proove it".

Yeah, the rich go to college less when you look at the overall numbers because there are less rich people overall in all countries. THerfore, you need to look at the percentage.

With the military, there are many people form wealthy backgrounds- they are mostly officers. Most of the lower positions are filled with poor people. This was true in Vietnam and every war in modern history and is true today.

Were most of the people killed in Vietnam black? No, most of the people killed were Vietnameese. Were most of the US soldiers killed black? Overall no, but a higher percentage of GIs were black when compared to their proportion in society.

[Capitalist Lawyer]

Because we all know, that if blacks aren&#39;t in the military killing and being killed, then they&#39;d be rampaging through nice white neighborhoods right? Thank goodness that there is the military to keep them from "hanging out and singing kumbaya" in "our neighborhoods".

Huh?

That&#39;s not what I was implying. Please read my statement again. If I&#39;m being "prejudiced" against anyone, it&#39;s the weirdo communists who inhabit this board.

So, how about responding to my claim about putting a racial quota on the armed forces instead of screaming "racism"?


Why is it that minorities become involved in so called criminal activity and sucumb to poverty in the first place?


What "minorities" exactly are we talking about here? Clearly not all, or even a majority of minority groups fit the description you&#39;re giving.



No, its due to a lack of opprotunity stemming from a country and world for that manner, that perpetuates a system were some people are privalleged and some are not.


Except that in our system... even what you call "losers" are winners when compared on a global scale. Therefore, I don&#39;t accept your terminology.

[L Mises]

Originally posted by Guerrilla22+Jan 4 2006, 10:02 AM--> (Guerrilla22 @ Jan 4 2006, 10:02 AM)
Rummy [email protected] 3 2006, 10:58 PM
Well, even if this was true (and it looks like it is still debatable), I think that the military is among the best options for minorities and the impoverished. I have known several individuals who would have otherwise turned to a life of street crime or drugs, and the US military really helped them become mature adults with a sense of responsibility and acheivement.

I can&#39;t remember one person who ever thought it was a mistake. I&#39;m sure there are those people who would say it was a mistake, but they are probably few and far between.

The US military also has a good record (in the last 30-40 years) of promoting minorities to higher positions at much better rate than corporate America, though that may have to do with proportion.
Its a good opprotunity for them to get shot. <_< One must look deeped into the subject. Why is it that minorities become involved in so called criminal activity and sucumb to poverty in the first place? Is it because minorities are just stupid and can&#39;t figure out how to live in a"civillized manner"?

No, its due to a lack of opprotunity stemming from a country and world for that manner, that perpetuates a system were some people are privalleged and some are not. Inequality exist to an extreme degree in the US. Cappies tend to ignore this fact so often, because without inequality capitalism can&#39;t work. [/b]
Capitalism has never try to ignore the inequality that exists between classes.

The argument for it is that because of how efficent the system is; both the rich and the poor are better off in the long run.

For example, I have an extremely poor friend who can afford a car, brand new laptop, the latest videogames, and go to college. Sure maybe 50 to 100 years ago, such things were only available to the rich. I am sure several teenages his age have the same luxuries that he enjoys.

It is in the best interest of the Rich to make products and service as widely affordable to the poor, because that is how they get RICH.

I like how you choose to ignore different ethical groups, and assume they are all poor and underprivillaged. Asians have the highest social-economic per capita income exceeding even whites. Lack of my opportunities my foot.

[Re-visionist 05]

i dont know about that. Poor people tend to get inadequete educations. I live in one of Americas largest source of military recruits: San Antonio, Texas. Its a really poor, blue-collar city, and like the rest of texas, has a horrible public schooling system. About 70% of the adults here dont have a bachlors degree, the majority of the families here rent their homes, and we have one of the highest rates of teenage pregnancy, obesity, and domestic abuse in the country. The reason the poor join the military is that they think it is the only choice they have. Loans and financial aid to attend college have become more and more exspensive, because of rising interest rates. Many graduates find themselves in debt up to &#036;50,000, and they often go into professions that will not alllow them to pay off such a tremendous loan in a short amount of time( for example careers requiring an education higher than a batchlors, like social work, education, and the more noble types of law)

Not to mention theres a state-wide, if not nation wide, shortage of teachers.
Overcrowding in public skools is a huge problem here as well, and i can keep going and going and going.

In a nutshell, amerika was not created for the benefit of the poor. We are a meritocracy; a society judged on the old puritan merit of sucess. People who get rich, teach their kids how to stay rich, poor people teach their kids to get rich, but have no real examples to give them on how to do it.

If you think that theres ample oppurtunity for the poor here in the us, come to San antonio, and fix our disastrous education, and social programs. While your at it, you might want to fix the rest of our state.

[JKP]

Originally posted by Re&#045;visionist [email protected] 5 2006, 05:11 PM
We are a meritocracy
No we are not. There are factors that are outside of the majority of people&#39;s control. Things like market forces. War is another.

Then you start counting the people who work 2 jobs and still can&#39;t make ends meet, and then you have the people who inherit their wealth. In short, America is not a meritocracy even by the most imaginative stretch.

That&#39;s something for the Economist.

[Re-visionist 05]

"America is not a meritocracy even by the most imaginative stretch."

In theory we are. We pride areselves to be that way, and we attempt to base our society upon the old Puritan work ethic, which is, without a doubt, a society based upon ones merit. Though, like oyu said, there are things that are out of our control, we tell the poor of our nation the old "horatio Alger myth", that if oyu wokr really hard, and invest your money wisely, you will become rich and sucessful, and every1 (in thoery, of course) will respect you. Its the value every upper-class kid is instilled with, from a young age, in the hopes that they will keep the family legacy alive, and the one that every poor kid is told, to help alieve a burdened concience of parents, who feel that they just did not do enough in life, and want their kids to have more. The market and wars are only external factors, that come to disillusion the brainwashed masses of the world.

[Capitalist Lawyer]

I&#39;m still waiting for a reply to my assertions. How come nobody is responding?

[istillloveatomickitten]

well as a gay white supremacist I totally agree with Capitalist Lawyer&#33;

[KickMcCann]

Originally posted by L [email protected] 5 2006, 07:33 PM
For example, I have an extremely poor friend who can afford a car, brand new laptop, the latest videogames, and go to college. Sure maybe 50 to 100 years ago, such things were only available to the rich. I am sure several teenages his age have the same luxuries that he enjoys.


Just because he can "afford" those luxuries does not mean he can actually "afford" them. A large influence that keeps poor people poor is the media along with materialistic, commodified western culture. This is the inspiration of the modern middle class, a poorly defined idea in itself. Many people who are actually "working class" identify themselves as or try to maintain the lifesytle of the "middle class" because its popular belief that everyone is middle-class and the lifestyles seen on abc and mtv are the lifestyles we all must strive to. The only way these people can have a suburban sprawl house, 2-3 cars, theater-style entertainment systems, shop at abercrombie, have a gym membership and put 2.5 kids through college is by accumulating massive amounts of debt.
The way the system is built they can actually continue accumulating and paying off debt perpetually. But if the primary earner of income happens to fall ill or possibly die (as many middle-aged folks do), the straw house of deficit spending and payments will collapse under the burden of massive medical expenses. These families, who are completely acclimated with "keeping up with the Jones&#39;" will be forced to sell of most of their property, get jobs, forget about college and move into a crappy apartment on the wrong side of town. It happens all the time and is probably happening to some poor family right now.

You are right that affordable consumerism is essential to capitalism, but capitalism is vastly multifaceted, and just as much if not more wealth is accumulated by putting people into perpetual debt with high interest rates. Not only that but poverty and joblessness keep inflation down, sure to put a smile on the face of any capitalist.

People who are poor must realize they are poor and not spend beyond their means, they might not be able to live like the people on tv, but it will keep the roof over their head.

[Notaleftist]

I worked and went to college at the same time. I didn&#39;t go into debt doing it either. I didn&#39;t have time to lay around and smoke dope either :(

[fpeppett]

Im intrigued to know why emperor sam beleives that the army is not made up of mainly the working class, and beleives it is a myth.

To beleive this is not a myth is ridiculous. Too disagree that any army, from the capitalist states around the world, is made up of mainly the working class is just plain idiotic, just as it would be to say that &#39;rich kids make up most of the garbage disposal workforce&#39;.
It sounds li8ke you have cooked up these statistics because you wanted to give the impression that &#39;the rich suffer too&#39;.

Oh yea heres a article discrediting your margaret thatcher loving thinktank.

http://home.att.net/~Resurgence/L-thinktank.htm (http://home.att.net/~Resurgence/L-thinktank.html)