Watchu mean, "we," Kemosabe? You really mean, "they," you patronizing schlemiel. See, minority and low-income youth are so easily brainwashed into joining the U.S. military that young white Leftists must come to their aid. Betcha most folks didn't know that. And so, it looks like the feel-good ballot initiative titled "College Not Combat" may be headed to voters this fall in San Francisco.
Here's the campaign's' site.
The College Not Combat campaign is an exciting effort to get an anti-military recruitment initiative on the ballot in San Francisco.
Yeah, great way to meet "progressive" chicks, AND build the base for nuevo-retro outfits like the San Francisco People's Coalition.
Here's the text. I really like the pay-off, if it passes.
Resolved, that the people of San Francisco oppose U.S. military recruiters using public school, college and university facilities to recruit young people into the armed forces. Furthermore, San Francisco should oppose the military’s "economic draft" by investigating means by which to fund and grant scholarships for college and job training to low-income students so they are not economically compelled to join the military!
Yeh, that'll really shake things up. Never mind that it's illegal to ban military recruiters from most schools getting federal funds. Suppose somehow (and let's pretend here we live in the same dream world the initiative's sponsors do) the intent of the measure was achieved. No recruiters on campus. Guess it'd be time for a draft then. Huh?
Posted by Matt Rosenberg at June 25, 2005 11:35 AM
Here is a modest counter-proposal:
"Be It Enacted by the Congress of the United States, that no funds appropriated by the Congress for any educational institution denying the use of its premises to representatives of the military recruiting services of the United States shall be applied to any purpose other than the deferment of tuition expenses for members of the armed services of the United States, or persons honorably discharged from the same. Any provisions in existing appropriations inconsistent with this stipulation are hereby repealed."
Posted by: Tom Rekdal at June 25, 2005 01:40 PMTom, I like it. Did you have a previous life as a legislative staffer, by any chance?
Posted by: Matt R. at June 25, 2005 07:12 PMWhy use him for cannon fodder when you could use him for target practice. ;)
Posted by: Nathan Azinger at June 26, 2005 11:40 AMI wonder why these people never talk about the fact that even though minorities join the armed forces in greater numbers, they also form a far lower percent of combat troops, they join the rear echelon.
That is because us whities join for different reasons (family honor etc) and are more likely to end up in combat positions because of that.
I have no links but I remember it is something like this:
Black males:
% of population: 13%
% of military: 15%
% of combat positions: 11%
% of support positions: 20%
So, no "they" do not do our fighting for us. I have yet to convince one of my Democrat friends of this. (Well my Democrat military brat friends all know this).
Posted by: Pluto's Dad at June 30, 2005 01:36 PM