As we all know, one of the first things the iconic Sgt. Hulka said to the new recruits upon their arrival at basic training in the immortal "Stripes" was:
Men, welcome to the United States Army. I’m Sergeant Hulka. I’m your
drill sergeant. Before we proceed any further, we gotta get something
straight. Your mamas are not here to take care of you now. It’s just
you, me, and Uncle Sam. And before I leave you, you’re gonna find out
that me and Uncle Sam are one in the same.
Well what would he have to say about this caption from The Associated Press, which goes with the above photo?
Pfc. Kimbery Brown,37, left, and her 18-year-old son Pfc. Dereck Noe, right, of Boone NC., embrace after they graduated together during a ceremony Friday, Aug. 18, 2006, at the Army’s training facility at Fort Jackson, in Columbia, S.C.
Related Posts
I think that Sergeant Hulka would be pretty sad that the military is not meeting its recruiting goals due to a growing sense among the public that the Bush administration is needlessly endangering our soldiers by incompetently prosecuting a foolish war and that, moreover, the Bush administration is breaking faith with our soldiers by witholding spending on equipment, and services for soldiers and veterans, in order to finance tax cuts and payments to contractors. He would be sad that these factors require such an expansion of the recruiting pool.
Sergeant Hulka might also reflect that if Warthen and other tireless (armchair) advocates of the war would either enlist themselves or urge their own relatives and acquaintances to enlist, we would not need to ask such sacrifices of people like Ms. Brown.
Well, Ms. Brown is 37. The Army recently started letting people up to age 42 join up. I’m 53, and they didn’t want me when I was 19.
I don’t urge anybody to join. As long as we have a volunteer force, I think it should be made up of people who don’t have to be talked into it by me.
At some point, we’ll have to have a draft. Then the Army will have its pick of 19-year-old males, and won’t have to enlist their moms.
MY only chance to go is in connection with my work, and that’s a long shot. I’ve put the word around that I want to go — I think the upcoming S.C. Guard deployment to Afghanistan might provide an opportunity (although I’d prefer Iraq) — but the message I keep getting is that expense budgets are more likely to shrink than to grow. And right now, I don’t have any money in the budget to go to North Carolina, much less halfway around the world.
What I would want would be something like the deal that the Rolling Stone imbed who wrote the book I’m reading had — going into combat with Recon Marines. It would be pretty awful to move heaven and earth to get to go over there, and be stuck sitting in the Green Zone listening to daily briefings.
Ultimately, on the big picture, I think we ought to open military service to everybody. I believe there are things I could contribute, in Iraq and elsewhere. But the Pentagon doesn’t seem to think so. Maybe they’ll keep raising the age until it catches up with me, and then they’ll waive the health requirements. If I can do kickboxing class twice a week (which I do), I ought to be able to go to war.
OK, now, I have answered Mary on that point at great length and in good faith. Now that I have, I will put my editor hat back on and say that Mary had a perfectly fine comment going there for one paragraph, but then she blew it. Under the rules, she put herself right on the cusp in terms of acceptability with that completely unnecessary (and monotonously repetitive and irrelevant) second paragraph.
I have now bent over backward in giving out dispensations. Mary’s gotten more than her share, and should expect no more. The sad thing is, as the first part indicates, she CAN express herself in a civil manner. She just can’t seem to control that little devil on her shoulder that says, “Go ahead; add some kind of personal attack.”
Mary’s last paragraph is hardly offensive.
It’s really quite accurate.
Is there an age limit on volunteering at Dorn VA Hospital, Brad?
“I don’t urge anybody to join. As long as we have a volunteer force, I think it should be made up of people who don’t have to be talked into it by me.”
Why?
People join the military for all kinds of reasons, including recommendations and exhortations by relatives and acquaintances. Some people join because that’s what they’ve always wanted to do, some join because they have a generalized desire to spend part of their lives in service to their country, some join because of financial need, and some join because they perceive that the country has a specific need that would be met by their service.
You have spent years talking from the safety of your armchair about what “we” need to do. If “we” have this need, why don’t you take personal steps to meet it? If the need is so great, why can’t you do what you can go persuade your relatives and acquaintances to help meet it?
If everyone who supports the war, and is eligible to fight in it, volunteered, there would be no recruiting shortfall.
“At some point, we’ll have to have a draft.”
Why?
A draft is a mechanism for forcing a burden that should be borne by the public at large, onto a smaller portion of the public. There are numerous ways to avoid a draft. One is to pay enlistees whatever it takes to fill the ranks. That has two advantages. First, it gives the enlistee a reward that, in his or her estimation, is fair compensation for the dangers and hardships undertaken. Secondly, it gives the taxpaying public a truer sense of the burden imposed by any particular war (although this sense is still a pale shadow of the true burden borne by the enlistees, many of whom are strongly motivated by patriotism and therefore accept less than a true compensation for the burden they shoulder), and therefore includes the public to think much more gravely about the costs of war before entering into one.
Another way to avoid a draft is to take every possible step to minimize the burden of military service on the enlistees. To clearly define and minimize the length of the required tours of duty, and to make sure that they have every resource we can give them to help them to maintain a stable home life. To, as Michael Moore says, recognize that our troops fight for us. That they fight so we don’t have to. And that we have an obligation to make sure that we never send them into harm’s way unless it is absolutely necessary.
There are plenty of ways to avoid a draft.
“I believe there are things I could contribute, in Iraq and elsewhere. But the Pentagon doesn’t seem to think so.”
Call them up.
“OK, now, I have answered Mary on that point at great length”
Yes.
“and in good faith.”
No.
“Under the rules, she put herself right on the cusp in terms of acceptability with that completely unnecessary (and monotonously repetitive and irrelevant) second paragraph.”
It may be repetitive, but only in the same sense that a creditor is repetitive when he keeps saying “have you sent in your payment” and the answer keeps coming back “no.”
And it is totally relevant. It goes to the heart of the reason you are so enthusiastic about this war. You are enthusiastic about it because all of the costs fall on others.
Brad,
I don’t see a problem with Mary’s second paragraph since it is neither vulgar nor offensive. Also, you are a public figure, and you are bound to fall under closer scrutiny than the rest of us. You’re going too far on this one. There’s a big difference between Mary’s usual “worthless piece of garbage” diatribes, and the second paragraph above.
Today’s news…
WASHINGTON – The Marine Corps will soon begin ordering thousands of its troops back to active duty because of a shortage of volunteers for Iraq and Afghanistan — the first involuntary recall since the early days of the war.
Mary was a crack shot with that second paragraph. If she had a musket, she nailed you from 150 yards away on a 1 in 138 chance because her aim was true.
I had previously marvelled at how you usually, stoically took her volleys like a good soldier. Now, I think we’re seing chinks in the kevlar.
How is her second paragraph crossing your 45th parallel?
Mary’s second paragraph carries on her tiresome chickenhawk twaddle. She should have left it out. Moreover, I don’t think we asked Ms, Brown to enlist, she volunteered, and apparently has qualifications other than serving as cannon fodder. Our military requires a wide range of skills; and she apparently has the desire and aptitude for an important job:
She sounds like a heckuva woman. I think that Sergeant Hulka might have been pretty durn happy.
The point that RTH, Mark, and Capital A miss is that we want to discuss ideas, not avoid them by attacking individuals. Any of you could have done some Googling for more info. Kudos to Doug Ross for adding news of today’s Marine’s call-up to carry forward the “Omigod we’re running out of cannon fodder” theme that branched off from Brad’s introduction.
My take on civility is here.
Mike, that post is brilliant. Thanks. We don’t see eye to eye on several things, but on civility, we do. “Don’t feed the trolls!” Thanks for emphasizing that.
I wonder, too, if there isn’t some generational differences. They tell me that the “post-modern’ generation has a natural disdain for authority. I don’t quite understand why people don’t simply respect Brad’s position as blog host more. He doesn’t have to go the trouble of setting this thing up, does he? I mean, at the risk of sounding really ridiculous, isn’t there some basis for being grateful to Brad? RTH and Cap, to mention but two, have some very insightful thoughts, but I don’t see why they have to be quite so caustic. I’ve learned from Mary, too, though the coward routine is nauseatingly tiresome.
Maybe I can provide some fodder, then again, maybe not, as this may be of interest only to a few. But not long ago, someone asked what an evangelical is, and this article gives a half-way decent analysis of the term in its historical roots of American Protestantism, along with the political implications of Protestant liberalism, fundamentalism, and evangelical thought. I don’t like some of the rigid categories, especially because, as someone who sees himself as an evangelical, I don’t prescribe to the typical evangelical viewpoint on Israel, but the article is still helpful.
In that last paragraph, “prescribe” should obviously be “subscribe.” And, while I’m at it, in the second paragraph, “isn’t” should be “aren’t”.
And I realize that my last paragraph, unlike Doug’s post, has nothing to do with the subject, but hey, where am I going to put it?
For what it’s worth, I just re-read the article again. Not critical enough of evangelicals (obviously written by one), and some categories are arbitrary (there are ultra-Calvinists who would consider themselves as evangelicals, and not fundies).
Hopefully though it will help alleviate some fears that evangelicals are out to take over the world.
I find many people, and most politicians who I’ve watched, develop a repertoire of talking points for a specific view. When engaged in dialogue, they do not attempt to learn from others. They simply practice and refine their ability to argue their side. Some include personal criticism to buffer their argument when they lack a substative response. We have seen bloggers like that here.
This is why I have tremendous respect for McCain, Graham, and Liberman because they do not blindly follow the pied pipers of their party. I’ve witnessed similar thoughtful dialogue on this blog; which, by the way, seems to have a much better tone.
Randy, is it just a coincidence that McCain, Graham and Lieberman all support the war in Iraq? Supporting that disaster is the least thoughful position of any political position out their.
Brad, Mary scored a home run on this topic. The Iraq war is largely supported by folks who bear very little burden. If you want to win my respect (not my endorsement of your position, however) you can do something concrete to support the effort. Send more money, volunteer at the VA. Ask the State for an assignment in Iraq to cover the war. I have yet to see you do anything but rant about how it would be a disaster to withdraw. It’s now time to put up or shut up.
Brad, you did say you were trying to go to Iraq. I missed that. Good for you. At least that’s something.
Herb –
Thanks for the compliment. Coming from you, it means a lot.
Your link to Mead’s article in Foreign Affairs was broken; here’s one that works.
The term “post-modernism meant many things to many people, one reason that it’s dying: it’s not a useful shotcut to describe much. It did encompass a disdain for authority, but that’s because it rejected empiricism, the notions of objectivity and standards. With all of its adherents congratulating themselves on their insights and wit, the post-modernist crowd forgot that they really stood for nothing and were rather surprised to find out that they were fools. We can thank one guy for offering the initial proof.
Physicist Alan Sokal published an article in a leading journal using some of the language, vocabulary, and rhetorical devices of deconstruction, but which he deliberately designed to be what he considered “self-indulgent nonsense”.
Sokal’s critics claim, however, that his parody was not truly nonsensical, and had its own internal logic. Regardless, the “Sokal affair” suggests that a work warranted by its own author to be outright nonsense may be received by deconstructionists as more or less sensible, calling into question the common sense of the deconstructionists in particular and post-modernists in general.
I don’t think the differences you cite are generational as much as they are attitudinal: every situation has its rules that one can follow or not, with consequences dependent on the situation. Brad has informed us of his rules for his blog; the consequences of ignoring the rules are banishment. There are rules for driving with varying degrees of consequences regardless of station or political office held. One may believe that the circumstances at a particular instant — being late for a meeting — justify an exception for following the speed limit, but one should realize that the subjective rationale does not excuse the fact of violation, whether one is a farmer or a physician, if you get my drift.
As for Mead’s article, I regard religion as a critical component of culture. Analysis and experience help us determine overall goals and detailed procedures in foreign policy, politics, child-rearing — heck, just about everything we do. Culture is the embodiment of all that, it’s the way we fragile human beings convey what we’ve learned. If we’ve analyzed properly and the culture is healthy, the society will continue. If not, we go the way of the Aztecs. So we should welcome the involvement of all in the formulation of not only our foreign policy, but in all aspects of life so that we can assimilate the best.
Mead is an insightful analyst. On my blog I’ve referenced his pre-9/11 identification of the Jacksonian school of foreign policy and in fact refer to myself as a Jacksonian,
Back to the folks who join the military, some do so for economic reasons, others to get a fresh start. But the military does have its own traditions and instills two important values: self-reliance and teamwork. These are not contradictory: for the team to function at 100% efficiency, its members must be proficient and responsible. The military also dishes out a lot of responsibility to awfully young folks. More of our youngsters could use the dose of reality that such service brings. Our society would benefit.
Maybe we could start a fundraiser to help Brad get to Iraq. I’m sure that Andre Bauer, Karen Floyd, Mark Sanford, and PPIC would all chip in some cash from their campaign funds. 🙂
Although I shudder at the thought of who might be left in charge of the editorial page in Brad’s absence. I can envision daily columns on why we should all be happy to pay more taxes.
Rather than seeing Brad go to Iraq, how about the Bush twins? That would be the single symbolic step GWB could make to demonstrate his commitment to the effort.
I’d even settle for them volunteering at a VA hospital versus partying in Georgetown.
Lighten up, Francis.
The point that RTH, Mark, and Capital A miss is that we want to discuss ideas, not avoid them by attacking individuals.
Posted by: Mike Cakora | Aug 22, 2006 9:54:34 PM
I don’t believe that any of us are missing a point. I would suggest that you are so focused on “civility,” that it is you who is wide of the target.
I barely agree with Mary on anything, but I do share her stances that this war is pointless and that Mr. Warthen is being quite hypocritical where “civility” is concerned. Mr. Warthen slung mud first and then asked all who disagreed with him to go home and get a bath. For some of us, that won’t do as we’d prefer to get a clod with the rock of logic inside in an attempt to conk him back to common sense.
Personally, I don’t think Mr. Warthen totally thought his stance (or the other side’s) through before posting the original article which initiated this mess and is now suffering a stoning from those he originally castigated. A much deserved one (on this issue), I might add. Maybe, Mr. Cakora, you should more strictly consider our appeals absent of our names, instead of just rushing to defend a fellow comrade?
That’s mental quicksand.
Heck, Mary is even hurling only pebbles now, yet you still cry foul? Why not just answer her charges, Mr. Warthen, instead of dismissing her? If you don’t respect her enough due to her personal diatribes at your expense, I understand, but I have many of the same questions for you that she has posed.
I am definitely not a fan of Mary’s style of expression, manytimes becauase I find it too direct, brusque and overly serious. That, however, is neither here nor there. Right is right, regardless of the muddy messenger.
Her statements on these two issues is consistent and clear…and on the war issue, SHOULD BE extremely sober, as they are.
What rankles me most about this particular topic of “civility” is that “those in power” don’t seem to apply the same sandlot rules to themselves. I believe that is what is taking place here.
When Mr. Warthen released that original article, he wasn’t just “discussing ideas,” he was shutting off his mind to any opposite stance as his subsequent posts have proven. It really is representative of what I call the Failed Generation (with Clinton and Bush being two of the most notable representatives.).
Members of that timely club are caught between admiring the “morals” of the “Greatest Generation” and dealing with the sober irreverence of generations following. Those same members never admit they are wrong once they take a stance, even if they are proven wrong and never, EVER publicly…which only adds to the jaded nature of that previously mentioned posterity.
On your own page, Mr. Cakora, you are a self-proclaimed Jacksonian. In a case like this, what would AJ have done?
I’ll gamble that whatever it was, it’d have hardly been “civil.”
Note your prejudices, strive to keep them in check and you just may find yourself siding with and playing well with others, even those you wanted to toss into a puddle upon first meeting.
Herb, I’m caustic because people like Brad and so many of his pro-war fellows take the lowest road of silencing debate rather than engaging in debate. They slander and libel the opposition (which has been proven objectively correct from the beginning).
I was astounded and disbelieving the first time that I read Brad’s attack. He “counseled” us that we should “let go” of our “hatred” for Dear Leader; that we could be “for America winning” without being pro-Bush.
How much more condescending and insulting can you be? Well, we’ve found out. He’s specifically said (or implied) that the opposition is weak-willed, defeatist etc. Apparently he draws the line at accusing us of being Al Qaeda agents or dupes. Those insults may just be waiting in the wings until the occupation really starts going south.
I’m unwilling to call Brad a coward. Not because it’s “uncivil” or because “we discuss ideas here” but because, as he’s noted, he has no ready avenue to “walk the talk.”
I will, without compunction, flay his mistaken ideas that have led to the deaths of thousands of Americans, tens of thousands of Iraqis, the loss of American prestige and power, and the waste of billions of tax dollars. I will, without qualm, echo Mary Rosh’s theme that Brad’s support of the war is largely because he personally doesn’t endure any of the burdens or consequences.
Brad is not just any Joe Blow with an opinion. He’s an opinion-shaper who has been awarded a bully pulpit. To some extent, the personal ferocity of the criticism is due to the powerlessness of his newspaper readers to reply or counter his columns.
When Brad’s editorial board endorsed Dear Leader in 2004 despite four years of evidence that his administration was an abject disaster for America I could only grind my teeth and rail to my wife. Here, I can and will hold him responsible for, at least, the tragedy of the second term.
When he insults my patriotism or “resolve” Brad is only stoking the fire, not squelching the discussion as he’d like to.
Make that last paragraph read:
When he insults my patriotism or “resolve” Brad is only stoking red-hot resentment, not squelching the criticism of a failed and morally bankrupt war.
RTH, 2004 was the ultimate political frustration moment for me. The abject failure of the Decider was so apparent by then, yet somehow he pulled in more voters than he did in 2000. How could that happen? What possible reason could a Gore voter switch? Expecially in Florida with all the shenanigans the Republicans pulled in 2000. Wouldn’t the wrongly disenfranchised vote in droves for Kerry? And I have yet to find a 2000 Nader voter that did not vote for Kerry in 2004.
And now we see polling numbers in the low 30s for Bush. It was all so clear to see 2 years ago. My question is: What took everyone so long to see the Bush administration for the failure that it so clearly is?
My question is: What took everyone so long to see the Bush administration for the failure that it so clearly is?
Posted by: bud | Aug 23, 2006 7:59:04 AM
I would, instead, choose to focus on the proud fact that people are starting to trickle and tumble out of Plato’s Allegorical Cave concerning this issue. Unfortunately, epiphany always seems to come at the cost of much blood.
We have to trust in the our agreed upon process where our elections are concerned. America is greater and more eternal than any ephemeral Bush administration.
Here’s more evidence of the failed Bush Administration. According to figures just released by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration there were 43,443 persons killed on the nations highways in 2005. That represents the most since 1990. Furthermore, there were 1.47 persons killed per 100 million vehicle miles of travel. That is up from the 2004 figure of 1.45, the first increase in mileage death rate since 1986.
This is just an unacceptable carnage that is completely overlooked by an adminstration focused on one problem and only one, the war on terror. Yet again we see an example of resources grossly misused that could be put to so much greater use here at home.
We lose three ways in our continued presence in Iraq: (1) Americans and Iraqis alike are dying needlessly (along with the injuries and cost) (2) The debacle is making terrorism a greater threat to Americans and others, and (3) Vital resources are wasted that could help solve problems at home.
In baseball threes strikes and you’re out. Sadly, in American politics 3 strikes makes you a strong and decisive leader in some quarters.
Bud, the elections of 2000 and 2004 demonstrate that we need comprehensive election reform in this country.
Now, there is an important and substantive subject that we could sink our teeth into instead of debating hippocrital lectures on “civility” by Brad.
I haven’t read a convincing explanation of why the exit polls were so “inaccurate” in 2004. We’ve advocated overturning the results of other nation’s elections when the exit polls strongly contradicted the official results. Yet, here we stoutly maintain that our slipshod, open-to- partisan-manipulation election process is above reproach.
Congressional incumbents have clearly gerrymandered their districts until their re-election is nearly a foregone conclusion.
This is not a partisan issue but the rightwing Republicans will cynically claim that it is since they’re in power now. Delay’s extra-legal power grab in redistricting Texas clearly signals that the Republicans are intent on creating a structural partisan advantage while they control the levers of power.
Delay’s extra-legal power grab in redistricting Texas clearly signals that the Republicans are intent on creating a structural partisan advantage while they control the levers of power.
Posted by: Ready to Hurl | Aug 23, 2006 8:50:38 AM
And how’s that working out for them? For him?
The system is in place and IS working. Any “failures” are directly attributable to voters who, intentionally or not, choose to remain ignorant. Can you cue lines that lead to enlightenment? Delays will always rise to power as long as everyone the masses put personal pleasure above duty.
The awful crux of the matter is cultural, not systemical.
The more you try to control an undersired behavior, the more ways the undesirables find to escape your controls.
Has the Warthen as Sheriff fiasco taught you nothing?
“Francis?” All right, Tim: “You just made the list, buddy.”
Quick notes on others: I don’t know about the rest of you, but I’ve noted a marked improvement in the quality of Capital A’s posts in recent days. I appreciate it, enough so to answer his question: I consider the “you aren’t personally experiencing it, so you don’t get to have an opinion on this” argument to be contemptible. I dismiss it, whether it’s used to tell men they get no say on abortion or to say those without a personal stake can’t take a pro-war position. It’s emotion substituting for rational thought, and it’s beneath consideration.
Do you want the 18-25-year-old males doing the fighting running the country? I don’t, however much I admire what they’re doing. I think when they are older, their military service will make them better leaders. Yes, I would prefer people who have served, all other things being equal. That’s one of the things I like so much about John McCain — no one can say HE doesn’t know the costs of war. But we seldom get such choices. (And please, don’t bother comparing John Kerry’s abbreviated service to what McCain has given his country. I respect it, but it just doesn’t compare.)
That’s why I’d like to see a draft — even if there are no wars. People who have served make better leaders. We had a great generation of leaders after WWII because it simply wasn’t and issue — EVERYBODY in politics had served.
That’s because, contrary to Mary’s construct, a draft — a real, universal draft (and I’ve been quite clear that that’s what I want, since I say that even medically “unfit” people such as myself should be included) — is far more inclusive than a volunteer military, not less so.
As for leaders having to send their kids — what utter nonsense. You ever notice how only antiwar people say that? What if Roosevelt had told Eisenhower to skip that Second Front thing because he had a son in the 2nd Ranger Battalion (the first up the bluff at Omaha)? That would have been a very BAD thing.
Fortunately, Roosevelt was a great leader who would never have made a critical strategic decision such as that based on personal emotion. It would be an insult to him to suppose he would. That’s yet another thing that’s so outrageous about such arguments, and make me react to them as beneath notice.
Does that sound uncivil? I think it does, which is why I generally just ignore questions such as that — or, when I’m trying to bend over backward and give Mary or someone one more chance to move on to something relevant, I go ahead and answer it thoroughly (even though I think it irrelevant). I’m addressing it again now because several people keep asking. Well, now I’ve told you.
Oh, and Doug. If you raise that money, PLEASE don’t send the Bush girls. I want us to win this war. Send me, if you can work it out.
RTH and others –
Walking the Talk – I’m trying to understand the issue here, so please bear with me.
Charging that an opponent’s argument is weak or nonexistent because he does not “walk the talk” is not a counterargument; it’s an accusation that does not respond to the points of or refute the argument. I think we all have a problem with hypocrisy, so perhaps we should look at some practical, political examples.
Hypocrisy seems to involve pretense — pretending to have a value that one really does not. But whether or not hypocrisy is involved does not affect the validity of an argument one makes. If it did, all public discourse could only be conducted by two nuns in Dubuque, no?
And Bud, the truth is that there is no coincidence about my supporting McCain, Lieberman and Graham and their supporting the war, as you put it.
That’s certainly not the only qualifying factor, but any politician who does not believe we have a commitment in Iraq that we can’t walk away from, or that we have to do all we can to succeed there, is a politician I can’t respect — not unless that person comes up with some brilliant argument that I haven’t heard yet.
Brad, just do this one thing for me: Define success in Iraq? You harp constantly on “winning” and “success”. These are such vague terms. Include what benefits we receive by winning vs. losing. As I’ve outlined earlier, the costs are very clear:
(American deaths, American injuries, Iraqi deaths, $billions, deterioration of military infrastructure and readiness, recruiting tool for Al Qeada, incentive for Iran to develop nukes, resources diverted from domestic uses).
But you don’t show us any connection between “success” in Iraq and positive, tangible benefits to the American citizen. It’s as if “winning”, in and of itself, is worth ANY cost, no matter how high. Would “winning” reduce the odds of a terrorist attack by 20%? Do we get a trophy for winning? Do we make the ESPN highlight reel? I think the pro-war side is so focused on winning (or success), at any cost, they’ve lost all sense of perspective. Now that’s a position that I can’t respect.
I still notice a lot of Kerry/Edwards bumper stickers about, so I understand that the last election remains contentious. Blaming everything that goes wrong on the Bush Administration and its presumed allies makes as much sense as giving them credit for everything that goes right.
Traffic accidents? That’s just a little more sensible as the weather reports on the left-wing blogs and the hopes expressed for a major hurricane.
The bitterness descends approaches insanity when Howard Dean-contributor and TV critic Bob Laurence of the San Diego Union-Tribune says that coverage of the news team kidnapped in Gaza (Centanni and Wiig) is sparse because they work for Fox.
Exit polls are as much of an art as they are science. They appear to have a large sampling error that’s a function of what polling places are selected, where the poll taker stands, how the poll taker approaches and interacts with the person being interviewed, and so forth, Here’s an interesting report on an exit poll experiment. And here’s one on problems in 2004.
Mike, you’re article from the Washington Times raised even more suspicions. A key paragraph from this article:
In the end, it was the Bush campaign that appeared to have the most accurate polling on the two make-or-break states. Bush operatives, including campaign manager Ken Mehlman, took to the airways to correct the network reporting. They showed, precinct-by-precinct, how the president would pull out a victory, contrary to exit poll projections.
Now I’m not one for conspiracy theories but you have to wonder. If the Bush Administration had the fix in all along, it would just naturally follow that their own polling would support the outcome.
RTH is right, we desparately need major election reform. Here’s my plan:
1. Get rid of the electoral college. How can we rail at other countries’ electoral systems when we don’t have true democracy here. The man with the most votes should win.
2. Require a paper trail for all electronic voting.
3. Ban proprietary voting machines. All systems should have open architecture that allows both sides to verify, independently, the validity of the machines.
4. We need more, not less, polling. That would remove some of the temptation to cheat.
5. Require politically neutral officials to oversee the counting and certification process.
6. Ensure that all election laws are followed to the letter. No exceptions. If the law says an absentee ballot must be postmarked by a certain date then any that are late should not be counted, period.
7. Ensure all precincts have comparable access to voting apparatus. Voters in rich precincts should not have to wait less than those in poor areas.
We have drifted away from the spirit of freedom and democracy in this country by allowing sloppy electioneering. It’s time to fix this mess.
News flash for Brad: if we instituted a draft that meant the sons and daughters of the economic elite and peons alike might end up in Iraq then we’d be out of Iraq in short order.
If we raised taxes to cover the cost of the occupation then we’d be out of Iraq in short order.
Bottom line: if the decision makers and voters knew and felt the costs and consequences of occupying Iraq NOW then your neo-con fantasy of world domination would be down the tubes.
As it stands now, you’re more than willing to act as shill for the Bush shell game. You wrap the occupation of Iraq in faux patriotism and scare the suckers with bogus terrorism fear-mongering. You ignore the inevitable cost that our children and grandchildren will shoulder. When patriotic folks disagree you slander their patriotism and their “resolve.”
Talk about contemptible.
RTH,bud,and anyone else interested in some excellent articles about the current state of the union,google “Greg Palast”.His most recent book “Armed Madhouse”,is a must-read for those
of us here who are not living in a “state” of denial.
BTW, in some thread on here Dave (I think) said something to the effect of “Who better to dominate the world than the U.S.”
Uhm, because foreign countries dominating other countries is antithetical to the American ideal?
Jeez.
Mike C and Brad,
It looks like the need for “cannon fodder” is being felt.
Brad, since you’re not able to personally take your place in the glorious occupation of Iraq, perhaps you should start writing columns encouraging young people to join up. I’m sure that the rightwing bloggers would make you an honorary member of the Fighting 101st Keyboarders. (Motto:”We’re fighting the propaganda war at home.”)
Only, like every other aspect of this war, the Bush Administation wants to minimize the public awareness of the goals, conduct, and, of course, costs.
This is what’s known as a “back door” draft.
———————
from CNN
———————
Bush OKs involuntary Marine recall
Initial recall is for 2,500, but there is no cap
WASHINGTON (CNN) — President Bush has authorized the U.S. Marine Corps to recall 2,500 troops to active duty because there are not enough volunteers returning for duty in Afghanistan and Iraq, Marine commanders announced Tuesday.
[…]
Marine Col. Guy A. Stratton, head of the manpower mobilization section, told The Associated Press that there is a shortfall of about 1,200 Marines needed to fill positions in upcoming unit deployments.
“Since this is going to be a long war, we thought it was judicious and prudent at this time to be able to use a relatively small portion of those Marines to help us augment our units,” Stratton said, according to the AP.
Tours for recalled Marines could last 12 to 18 months, according to Marine officials.
[…]
Though the initial recall is for 2,500 troops, there is no cap on how many could be called up in the future.
Marines in the Individual Ready Reserve have fulfilled their four-year, active duty requirement, but are on call for another four years.
[…]
About 59,000 Marines are in the Individual Ready Reserve, according to Marine officials.
[…]
This is not the first time the corps has called on the Individual Ready Reserve since fighting started in Iraq in 2003. The Marines recalled more than 2,600 troops in the early days of the Iraq war.
The Army has recalled about 10,000 soldiers since September 11, 2001, the majority of those coming in 2004 to help in Iraq.
Cost of continued Iraq occupation (and that’s what it really is) – High and growing
Benefits of continued Iraq occupation – ?
In economics you always do something when the benefits exceed the cost. Right now apparently no one can quantify any benefits other than some vague notion of “we must win” or “the dominoes will fall if we pull out” or “we’ll embolden the terrorists”. The debate on the Iraq war has really become one sided. All the logic supports immediate withdrawl. We stay only because the neocons (who happen to be in charge) are just plain stubborn. It’s that simple.
Mike, because we’re so focussed on Iraq we do nothing to improve things here at home. We do nothing to support improved standards for automobiles. We do nothing to support tougher DUI laws. We do nothing to pay for much needed improvements for our highways. Yes, I blame the Decider for these failures. He should be campaigning for issues that would save lives here at home. But nooooooooo. He’s so bogged down with the Iraq quagmire that nothing else gets done. We don’t have money to do anything about any other problems. There is a direct correlation between the money we spend (waste) in Iraq and increases in murders, suicides, traffic deaths, increased poverty rates, declining health insurance coverage and all the other problems with long forgotten domestic needs here at home. We simply don’t have the resources to throw away in Iraq, cut taxes and increase domestic spending. So what do we cut? And the results show.
Bud, according to Lee, the boost to the economy from the tax cuts will pay for all this.
The Decider is the Commander in Chief. Yes, dems followed this pied piper into war, but he is THE man in charge. He is THE Decider.
In January, 2002, Dubya identified the “Axis of Evil” as being Iraq, Iran, North Korea. He had already decided to take Saddam Hussein down, no doubt planning to do the same to others later. It turned out to be a bigger job than he thought and Iraq was the easiest picking from this bunch. What’s he gonna do for an encore?
I haven’t read a convincing explanation of why the exit polls were so “inaccurate” in 2004
RTH
Read Mark Crispin Miller’s book “Fooled Again”
I’m probably the antithesis of the conspiracy theorist. I accept of all the following as fact:
Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone to assasinate JFK just like the Warren Commission said.
Americans did walk on the moon.
The WTC were destroyed by the impact of hijacked airliners. And the Pentagon was hit by an airliner, not a missle.
Space aliens did not crash in New Mexico in the 1950s.
FDR did not have prior knowledge of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor.
I accept all of the above as established fact. Yet the 2004 election is so bizarre, so illogical I have to wonder. Were the voting machines rigged? Among the many things that make no sense.
(1) Polling in Florida showed that voters who did not vote in 2000 (new voters for the most part) voted for Kerry; (2) Ralph Nader received far fewer votes in 2004 than in 2000, and by an overwhelming margin his 2000 supporters went for Kerry, (3) Disenfranchised voters from 2000 turned out in droves to vote. They almost certainly voted overwhelmingly for Kerry. (4) Polls showed a substantial disenchantment of the Iraq war by election day. Given that, there is very little logical explaination for a Gore voter to switch to Bush in 2004. (5) The disenchantment factor would suggest a few Bush voters from 2000 would switch to Kerry on that one issue alone. (6) The Butterfly ballot problem was fixed thus many voters who inadvertantly voted for Pat Bucchanan thinking they had voted for Gore, now would have an easier time making the right choice. Since they had intended to vote democratic in 2000 this group of voters likely overwhelmingly choose Kerry. (7) Early exit polls showed a sizeable Kerry win in Florida (and in Ohio too). As Bill pointed out no one has yet provided a convincing explaination.
Given all of this it simply makes no sense that Florida would swing so far in Bush’s favor from a dead-heat in 2000. This is one conspiracy theory that I just can’t give up on. At least not yet.