Tuesday, November 21, 2006
Paul Campos Shows Himself Humorless and Misinformed
In his Tuesday column, local law professor Paul Campos seems to support the Charlie Rangel stillborn idea of a return of the draft in order to involve the "upper class" of America. Campos invokes what he calls the most important economic idea, "externality." My knowledge of economics is so limited that I shouldn't talk about that part of the article. I will talk about later parts of the column, though. Professor Campos writes:
When Jonah Goldberg, a columnist for National Review and the Los Angeles Times (and a man of prime fighting age), argues that "we" should "throw a crappy little country against the wall" every few years, just to remind the rest of the world who's the boss, this "we" has a special, technical meaning. In fact it's the meaning normally conveyed by the word "they."
It is incredible to me that anyone could read Jonah Goldberg's article (titled Baghdad Delenda Est, Part Two) containing those words and come away with the idea the Goldberg was being serious and actually advocating meaningless but punitive wars constantly against small countries. What he was arguing is that weakness (like we showed in Somalia) has real consequences, which it does. I guess the left really is humorless.
But Campos goes on to reveal his belief in the lefty lie that the military is full of losers, largely from ghettos, who are in the military only because they had no other prospects, while the rich, "privileged' class stays out of the military.
Goldberg and his ilk - and in this latest splendid little war his ilk includes pretty much the entire American upper class - are always somewhere else when the trigger is being pulled. "We" can blather on about how freedom isn't free, and Gettysburg and Omaha Beach, but it's the great anonymous "they" - the kids from the projects in Rangel's Brooklyn congressional district and from depressed farming towns in North Dakota, and from East Los Angeles barrios - who do the fighting and the dying.
The truth is that the American Armed Forces are full of capable patriots proportionally from all economic "classes." The soldiers are from all over, they are all colors (although in a mostly white nation, most are white) and they have better grades, scores and prospects than a random sampling of the nation's youth. The one thing that they seem to share is a love of our country and a willingness to put their lives on the line, for very little money, in order to defend her.
I really do wish the haughty likes of Campos and Kerry would learn about our modern military before they condescend to insult the soldiers by implying they are losers and insult the members of the rich, "privileged" class who are in the military by claiming they aren't there.
It really is annoying.
When Jonah Goldberg, a columnist for National Review and the Los Angeles Times (and a man of prime fighting age), argues that "we" should "throw a crappy little country against the wall" every few years, just to remind the rest of the world who's the boss, this "we" has a special, technical meaning. In fact it's the meaning normally conveyed by the word "they."
It is incredible to me that anyone could read Jonah Goldberg's article (titled Baghdad Delenda Est, Part Two) containing those words and come away with the idea the Goldberg was being serious and actually advocating meaningless but punitive wars constantly against small countries. What he was arguing is that weakness (like we showed in Somalia) has real consequences, which it does. I guess the left really is humorless.
But Campos goes on to reveal his belief in the lefty lie that the military is full of losers, largely from ghettos, who are in the military only because they had no other prospects, while the rich, "privileged' class stays out of the military.
Goldberg and his ilk - and in this latest splendid little war his ilk includes pretty much the entire American upper class - are always somewhere else when the trigger is being pulled. "We" can blather on about how freedom isn't free, and Gettysburg and Omaha Beach, but it's the great anonymous "they" - the kids from the projects in Rangel's Brooklyn congressional district and from depressed farming towns in North Dakota, and from East Los Angeles barrios - who do the fighting and the dying.
The truth is that the American Armed Forces are full of capable patriots proportionally from all economic "classes." The soldiers are from all over, they are all colors (although in a mostly white nation, most are white) and they have better grades, scores and prospects than a random sampling of the nation's youth. The one thing that they seem to share is a love of our country and a willingness to put their lives on the line, for very little money, in order to defend her.
I really do wish the haughty likes of Campos and Kerry would learn about our modern military before they condescend to insult the soldiers by implying they are losers and insult the members of the rich, "privileged" class who are in the military by claiming they aren't there.
It really is annoying.
# posted by Roger Fraley @ 7:56 AM 
Comments:
<< Home
The truth is that the American Armed Forces are full of capable patriots proportionally from all economic "classes."
I'm suspicious, as usual. Usually you are so good about linking, I wonder why you don't here.
Here are a couple of fun facts:
There are twice as many blacks in active duty and reserves in percentage terms than are represented in the general population.
Of enlisted soldiers, about 5% have a BA or better. (although there is 7% "other or unknown". Trade school?)
Do you have some fun facts to support your statement there.
Keeping you on your toes,
Mike
I'm suspicious, as usual. Usually you are so good about linking, I wonder why you don't here.
Here are a couple of fun facts:
There are twice as many blacks in active duty and reserves in percentage terms than are represented in the general population.
Of enlisted soldiers, about 5% have a BA or better. (although there is 7% "other or unknown". Trade school?)
Do you have some fun facts to support your statement there.
Keeping you on your toes,
Mike
None of this is new information; in fact it's pretty much common knowledge among those who've bothered to follow the issue. For those that haven't, see (for instance) this Heritage Foundation paper.
"In summary, we found that, on average, 1999 recruits were more highly educated than the equivÂalent general population, more rural and less urban in origin, and of similar income status. We did not find evidence of minority racial exploitation (by race or by race-weighted ZIP code areas). We did find evidence of a "Southern military tradition" in that some states, notably in the South and West, provide a much higher proportion of enlisted troops by population."
"The household income of recruits generally matches the income distribution of the American population. There are slightly higher proportions of recruits from the middle class and slightly lower proportions from low-income brackets."
The paper is from November of last year, and indicates an increase in recruits from higher income brackets since 2001/09/11.
"In summary, we found that, on average, 1999 recruits were more highly educated than the equivÂalent general population, more rural and less urban in origin, and of similar income status. We did not find evidence of minority racial exploitation (by race or by race-weighted ZIP code areas). We did find evidence of a "Southern military tradition" in that some states, notably in the South and West, provide a much higher proportion of enlisted troops by population."
"The household income of recruits generally matches the income distribution of the American population. There are slightly higher proportions of recruits from the middle class and slightly lower proportions from low-income brackets."
The paper is from November of last year, and indicates an increase in recruits from higher income brackets since 2001/09/11.
Yeah, what Doug said. There are more blacks in the services than in the general population but I have always taken that as a good sign that blacks, who have been integrated in the services since 1948, trust the true, color-blind meritocracies that exists in the services and are drawn to them. I wasn't counting just the enlisted but the officers as well, most of whom have graduated from college, some of them pretty good ones too.
Any other questions?
Any other questions?
Officers are indeed very well educated as a group.
Does the U.S. really have only 5% of it's population with a B.A. or better? Wow, that is kind of sad.
Does the U.S. really have only 5% of it's population with a B.A. or better? Wow, that is kind of sad.
My son graduated from college with honors and enlisted in the Army as an enlisted man since OCS was not available until the following year. He will deploy to Iraq this month after 1 year in South Korea. The army asked him to stay in South Korea and offered an increase in rank. He refused knowing he probably would be sent to Iraq. Our household income is considerably above the median. I get very tired of the lies that are spoken about the military and those who do so are not aggressively challenged.
# posted by 
: 10:26 AM
: 10:26 AM
"Of enlisted soldiers, about 5% have a BA or better." (Since we're playing references games, do you have a reference for this or are you just making it up out of whole cloth?)
"Does the U.S. really have only 5% of it's population with a B.A. or better? Wow, that is kind of sad."
It helps quite a bit if you understand the subject. In particular, you need to understand what "enlisted soldiers" means -- it doesn't include officers, it doesn't include marines*, sailors, or airmen, it doesn't include warrant officers, and in some contexts it doesn't include non-commissioned officers of any sort. (Context is a part of the reason that I ask for your sources.)
Roger said (in the material that you quoted, so I assume that you've read it) that "the American Armed Forces are full of capable patriots proportionally from all economic 'classes.'" That would include the officer corps in all the services, NCOs and warrants, and enlisted personnel in services other than the Army.
If you were to claim that you found a source that said that "about 5% of hourly workers employed by state universities have a BA or better", I wouldn't recommend using that as support for a claim that "university employees are less well educated than the general population."
* Marines would have you capitalize that, BTW.
"Does the U.S. really have only 5% of it's population with a B.A. or better? Wow, that is kind of sad."
It helps quite a bit if you understand the subject. In particular, you need to understand what "enlisted soldiers" means -- it doesn't include officers, it doesn't include marines*, sailors, or airmen, it doesn't include warrant officers, and in some contexts it doesn't include non-commissioned officers of any sort. (Context is a part of the reason that I ask for your sources.)
Roger said (in the material that you quoted, so I assume that you've read it) that "the American Armed Forces are full of capable patriots proportionally from all economic 'classes.'" That would include the officer corps in all the services, NCOs and warrants, and enlisted personnel in services other than the Army.
If you were to claim that you found a source that said that "about 5% of hourly workers employed by state universities have a BA or better", I wouldn't recommend using that as support for a claim that "university employees are less well educated than the general population."
* Marines would have you capitalize that, BTW.
Rog,
I have come to the conclusion that the Rocky Mountain News' act of publishing Paul Campos is part of a diaboloical right wing plot to ridicule people to whom you would refer as "the left.". The man is just inane. Every Tuesday affords you the opportnity of shooting fish in a barrel.
Kindly take on a target more worthy of tour intellect.
Cheers,
T
I have come to the conclusion that the Rocky Mountain News' act of publishing Paul Campos is part of a diaboloical right wing plot to ridicule people to whom you would refer as "the left.". The man is just inane. Every Tuesday affords you the opportnity of shooting fish in a barrel.
Kindly take on a target more worthy of tour intellect.
Cheers,
T
# posted by : 12:39 PM
: 12:39 PM
Is it nobler in the mind to suffer the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune, or to take arms against a sea of troubles, and by opposing end them?
It's a hard question, but I don't think it's very new. (FWIW, I'm not a turn-the-other-cheek sort of guy, in case there was some doubt.)
8-)
Public inanity deserves public refutation. (Which is the lesson we are intended to take away from Borat, isn't it?) And the comments from our correspondent in Praha indicate that there is some value in such refutation, too, since it's not as if Campos is viewed entirely as a figure of ridicule.
Well, I mean "viewed by people other than Roger and his fellow travellers", of course.
Post a Comment
It's a hard question, but I don't think it's very new. (FWIW, I'm not a turn-the-other-cheek sort of guy, in case there was some doubt.)
8-)
Public inanity deserves public refutation. (Which is the lesson we are intended to take away from Borat, isn't it?) And the comments from our correspondent in Praha indicate that there is some value in such refutation, too, since it's not as if Campos is viewed entirely as a figure of ridicule.
Well, I mean "viewed by people other than Roger and his fellow travellers", of course.
<< Home
