Internetworkers: http://www.ibiblio.org/internetworkers/

[Steven Champeon <schampeo AT hesketh.com>]

on Wed, Feb 25, 2004 at 01:21:57AM -0500, Phillip Rhodes wrote:
> > http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/01/07/rangel.draft/
> > http://www.chronwatch.com/content/contentDisplay.asp?aid=1283&catcode=11
> > http://www.talkleft.com/archives/001773.html
> 
> Interesting.  I actually agree with his sentiments to a degree. 

I'm glad you didn't call them "reasons". From what I've read, it seems
that playing the race and class card when it comes to combat duty is a
poor bet. Seems African-Americans tend to gravitate towards the military
as a way to gain job skills, whereas the white kids tend to do it for
college money and kicks, and so they end up in combat units, etc.

But I haven't seen any authoritative data on this; I just remember it
being talked about quite a bit when the proposal was first floated. The
Economist thought it ironic that after years of being underrepresented
in the military, as soon as parity was achieved and then surpassed, the
cries started about having to bear an unfair share of the burden; then
quoted Colin Powell saying blacks in the military were a good thing.

And the idea that universal service should have any effect on whether
the children of the elite have to serve (and hence on whether they will
change their politics as a result)? What planet are they smoking? 

-- 
hesketh.com/inc. v: (919) 834-2552 f: (919) 834-2554 w: http://hesketh.com
Book publishing is second only to furniture delivery in slowness. -b. schneier