Uncle Sam to the liberals: I need you!

[Greed]

The troops? FUck them i hope they get sent home in fuckin plastic bags or not at all

you fuckin sign up to kill people for minimum fuckin wage- wanna serve your country? work at the fuckin post office

fuck them all

every dirty rotten scumbag taking a check to kill those people is a fuckin scumbag

yeah real bad for the troops - they'll get to come home and feel sorry about it MAYBE


This is one story and if the photographer wasnt there theeyd be lying about it

same ol shit

mufuckas would get mad at me for calling them baby killers?????????

i hope all those kids grow up and blow up some shit

wtf

when white people were doing it to us it wasnt cool but now that its someone else its all good huhhh

this puts shit back into perspective

Uncle Sam to the liberals: I need you!
Getting progressives into uniform can close the military-civilian culture gap.
ROSA BROOKS

AS A NORTHEASTERNER and a child of the left, I grew up knowing almost no one in the military. Shaped by Vietnam and the Cold War, my parents' generation of progressives distrusted U.S. military power. As a young child, so did I. I remember cheering at the Central Park concert celebrating the end of the Vietnam War. A few years later, I marched enthusiastically with my family to protest Reagan-era draft registration requirements.

But a lot has changed since then.

My own generation has been shaped not by the Vietnam War but by globalization's discontents: ethnic conflict and the rise of terrorism. With the post-Cold War fragmentation of the Balkans, the Rwandan genocide and a multitude of other brutal conflicts, I — and many other young progressives — gradually came to see the U.S. military as an imperfect but indispensable institution for stopping humanitarian tragedies.

Since Sept. 11, the military has seemed even more crucial. Indiscriminate terrorist attacks threaten every dream of peace, and combating globally diffuse terrorist networks requires an unprecedented mixture of criminal investigation and military force.

Although many progressives continue to regard the military with slight unease, no one imagines anymore that we would be better off without it. This week, the Washington Post reported on new classified military plans for responding to terrorist attacks in the United States — including potential nuclear, chemical or biological attacks so catastrophic that the military might be required to "take the lead" in responding, as one official put it. The term "martial law" was not used, but it was implicit.

Such troubling scenarios would once have seemed the stuff of paranoid fiction. After 9/11, they seem far too plausible.

That's why I've started urging all the bright young liberals I meet to join the military.

Sure, U.S. military policy is flawed in many respects. But that's not a reason for progressives to shun the military. On the contrary, it's one of the main reasons that liberals need to reexamine their long-standing aversion to military service.

There is a significant and growing gap between military and civilian cultures. While about a third of the general public identifies themselves as Democrats and another third as Republicans, a January 2005 Military Times poll found that 60% of military respondents were Republicans, 17% were independents and only 13% were Democrats.

A generation ago, the military was far less partisan in its composition: A plurality (46%) called themselves independents, while only 33% were Republicans. On numerous key social and religious issues, military personnel today are far more conservative than the typical American.

In today's polarized political atmosphere, anyone who finds this troubling needs to be willing to work for change from inside the military, not just from the outside. Otherwise, the cultural and political gap between the military and civilian society will only widen.

The Vietnam War-era draft pulled in a disproportionate number of poor young men because educational deferrals allowed elites to avoid service. But at least the draft covered the whole country. Today's volunteer military is drawn disproportionately from conservative Southern states and economically struggling rural areas.

Meanwhile, many of the elite universities, which tend to be liberal, booted ROTC off campus in the wake of the Vietnam War. Today, the percentage of students from elite universities who join the military is minuscule.

Progressives should embrace military service because we can't afford to let the gap between the military and civilians grow. It's deeply unfair to expect those Americans with the fewest economic opportunities to do our fighting for us. And as globalization and terrorism blur the lines between "domestic" and "foreign" affairs and between "civilian" and "military" affairs, having a military that is regionally identified and politically partisan poses real dangers to a pluralistic society.

Liberals should also remember that the military may have some valuable lessons to teach the rest of us. For instance, minorities make up more than a third of all military personnel, and 20% of the officer corps. That's a far higher leadership representation than that boasted by Congress or by most big universities and corporations. Unsurprisingly, most minority military personnel think that minorities are treated more fairly in the military than in civilian life. Wouldn't it be nice to transfer some of that racial egalitarianism to civilian culture?

Progressives need to get over their reluctance to serve in the military. Only when we're all willing to serve in the military will we have a military that can truly serve us all.

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-brooks13aug13,0,4210784.story

[Zero]

Uncle Sam to the liberals: I need you!
Getting progressives into uniform can close the military-civilian culture gap.
ROSA BROOKS

AS A NORTHEASTERNER and a child of the left, I grew up knowing almost no one in the military. Shaped by Vietnam and the Cold War, my parents' generation of progressives distrusted U.S. military power. As a young child, so did I. I remember cheering at the Central Park concert celebrating the end of the Vietnam War. A few years later, I marched enthusiastically with my family to protest Reagan-era draft registration requirements.

But a lot has changed since then.

My own generation has been shaped not by the Vietnam War but by globalization's discontents: ethnic conflict and the rise of terrorism. With the post-Cold War fragmentation of the Balkans, the Rwandan genocide and a multitude of other brutal conflicts, I — and many other young progressives — gradually came to see the U.S. military as an imperfect but indispensable institution for stopping humanitarian tragedies.

Since Sept. 11, the military has seemed even more crucial. Indiscriminate terrorist attacks threaten every dream of peace, and combating globally diffuse terrorist networks requires an unprecedented mixture of criminal investigation and military force.

Although many progressives continue to regard the military with slight unease, no one imagines anymore that we would be better off without it. This week, the Washington Post reported on new classified military plans for responding to terrorist attacks in the United States — including potential nuclear, chemical or biological attacks so catastrophic that the military might be required to "take the lead" in responding, as one official put it. The term "martial law" was not used, but it was implicit.

Such troubling scenarios would once have seemed the stuff of paranoid fiction. After 9/11, they seem far too plausible.

That's why I've started urging all the bright young liberals I meet to join the military.

Sure, U.S. military policy is flawed in many respects. But that's not a reason for progressives to shun the military. On the contrary, it's one of the main reasons that liberals need to reexamine their long-standing aversion to military service.

There is a significant and growing gap between military and civilian cultures. While about a third of the general public identifies themselves as Democrats and another third as Republicans, a January 2005 Military Times poll found that 60% of military respondents were Republicans, 17% were independents and only 13% were Democrats.

A generation ago, the military was far less partisan in its composition: A plurality (46%) called themselves independents, while only 33% were Republicans. On numerous key social and religious issues, military personnel today are far more conservative than the typical American.

In today's polarized political atmosphere, anyone who finds this troubling needs to be willing to work for change from inside the military, not just from the outside. Otherwise, the cultural and political gap between the military and civilian society will only widen.

The Vietnam War-era draft pulled in a disproportionate number of poor young men because educational deferrals allowed elites to avoid service. But at least the draft covered the whole country. Today's volunteer military is drawn disproportionately from conservative Southern states and economically struggling rural areas.

Meanwhile, many of the elite universities, which tend to be liberal, booted ROTC off campus in the wake of the Vietnam War. Today, the percentage of students from elite universities who join the military is minuscule.

Progressives should embrace military service because we can't afford to let the gap between the military and civilians grow. It's deeply unfair to expect those Americans with the fewest economic opportunities to do our fighting for us. And as globalization and terrorism blur the lines between "domestic" and "foreign" affairs and between "civilian" and "military" affairs, having a military that is regionally identified and politically partisan poses real dangers to a pluralistic society.

Liberals should also remember that the military may have some valuable lessons to teach the rest of us. For instance, minorities make up more than a third of all military personnel, and 20% of the officer corps. That's a far higher leadership representation than that boasted by Congress or by most big universities and corporations. Unsurprisingly, most minority military personnel think that minorities are treated more fairly in the military than in civilian life. Wouldn't it be nice to transfer some of that racial egalitarianism to civilian culture?

Progressives need to get over their reluctance to serve in the military. Only when we're all willing to serve in the military will we have a military that can truly serve us all.

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-brooks13aug13,0,4210784.story
Military service is more of a class issue than a Left vs. Right issue. When I was in the military, there were just as many "liberals" as "conservatives", but there was a definite gap between rich and poor. I think the only difference is honesty, a wealthy right winger will talk the chicken hawk talk while making sure himself or his children avoid service (ESPECIALLY DURING WARTIME WHEN THE RISK IS MAXIMIZED), a wealthy lefty will just blatantly refuse service for philisophical reasons. Either way, they still expect the poorest among us to defend their lifestyle.

[Gods_Favorite]

Either way, they still expect the poorest among us to defend their lifestyle.

Very true.

[QueEx]

Military service is more of a class issue than a Left vs. Right issue. When I was in the military, there were just as many "liberals" as "conservatives", but there was a definite gap between rich and poor.
I agree.

QueEx

[QueEx]

But, is that the real point of the thread http://64.255.174.200/board/images/icons/icon5.gif?http://64.255.174.200/board/images/icons/icon5.gif?http://64.255.174.200/board/images/icons/icon5.gif?

QueEx

[Zero]

But, is that the real point of the thread http://64.255.174.200/board/images/icons/icon5.gif?http://64.255.174.200/board/images/icons/icon5.gif?http://64.255.174.200/board/images/icons/icon5.gif?

QueEx
The article makes some incorrect assumptions. The issue is still poverty and not political affiliation. It seems to imply that conservatives are more willing to enlist (an untruth). The reason the military is made up the way it is politically is for one simple reason, a lot of poor rural whites are conservative and 50% of the military i smade up of poor rural whites. Poor urban whites, hispanics and blacks would be more likely to check "Independent" or Democrat" if asked. It would be illogical for too many badge wearing Liberals to be in the military because it's contrary to what many progressives believe in and I honestly would NOT want the defense of my country in the hands of a "progressive" anyway because much of what they believe in is completely contrary to what makes a good soldier (do you really want somebody by your side in combat allowing a suicide bomber into your camp because he "Looked thirsty" or some similar stupid shit?) I'd honestly rather see more right minded gays and women in the military than more pacifists.

The article also mentions that liberal elite are not enlisting, but fails to mention that conservative elite aren't serving in equal if not greater numbers (which, to me, is the real story behind the article).

I'm also not sure why Greed quoted Dolomite before the article (well, I actually know why, but it still merits the question). Would you really want somebody that feels the way he does to serve? Better that he be on the outside using his right to free speech than in the military rolling grenades under the cots of redneck Leutenants (LOL). Dissent has it's proper place and is needed in a free society, but that place is generally NOT in the military.

[QueEx]

... I'm also not sure why Greed quoted Dolomite before the article (well, I actually know why, ...
The point of the <u>thread</u> ... :D

QueEx

[Zero]

The point of the thread ... :D

QueEx LMAO+SMH

They accidentally agreed in this post http://64.255.174.200/board/showthread.php?t=41233 and didn't know how to handle it so they just started flaming each other anyway. (That was probably the funniest shit I've ever seen on the politics board)

[QueEx]

<font size="5"><center>Military Shuns Many of Recruiting Age</font size></center>


Mar 12, 5:08 PM (ET)
Associated Press
By PAULINE JELINEK

WASHINGTON (AP) - Uncle Sam wants YOU, that famous Army recruiting poster says. But does he really? Not if you're a Ritalin-taking, overweight, Generation Y couch potato - or some combination of the above.

As for that fashionable "body art" that the military still calls a tattoo, having one is grounds for rejection, too.

With U.S. casualties rising in wars overseas and more opportunities in the civilian work force from an improved U.S. economy, many young people are shunning a career in the armed forces. But recruiting is still a two-way street - and the military, too, doesn't want most people in this prime recruiting age group of 17 to 24.

Of some 32 million Americans now in this group, the Army deems the vast majority too obese, too uneducated, too flawed in some way, according to its estimates for the current budget year.

"As you look at overall population and you start factoring out people, many are not eligible in the first place to apply," said Doug Smith, spokesman for the Army Recruiting Command.

Some experts are skeptical.

Previous Defense Department studies have found that 75 percent of young people are ineligible for military service, noted Charles Moskos of Northwestern University. While the professor emeritus who specializes in military sociology says it is "a baloney number," he acknowledges he has no figures to counter it.

"Recruiters are looking for reasons other than themselves," said David R. Segal, director of the Center for Research on Military Organization at the University of Maryland. "So they blame the pool."

The military's figures are estimates, based partly on census numbers. They are part of an elaborate analysis the military does as it struggles each year to compete with colleges and companies for the nation's best and brightest, plan for future needs and maintain diversity.

The Census Bureau estimates that the overall pool of people who would be in the military's prime target age has shrunk as American society ages. There were 1 million fewer 18- to 24-year olds in 2004 than in 2000, the agency says.

The pool shrinks to 13.6 million when only high school graduates and those who score in the upper half on a military service aptitude test are considered. The 30 percent who are high school dropouts are not the top choice of today's professional, all-volunteer and increasingly high-tech military force.

Other factors include:

_the rising rate of obesity; some 30 percent of U.S. adults are now considered obese.

_a decline in physical fitness; one-third of teenagers are now believed to be incapable of passing a treadmill test.

_a near-epidemic rise in the use of Ritalin and other stimulants to treat attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. Potential recruits are ineligible for military service if they have taken such a drug in the previous year.

Doctors prescribe these drugs to about 2 million children and 1 million adults a month, according to a federal survey. Many more are believed to be using such stimulants recreationally and to stay awake longer to boost academic and physical performance.

Other potential recruits are rejected because they have criminal histories and too many dependents. Subtract 4.4 million from the pool for these people and for the overweight.

Others can be rejected for medical problems, from blindness to asthma. The Army estimate has subtracted 2.6 million for this group.

That leaves 4.3 million fully qualified potential recruits and an estimated 2.3 million more who might qualify if given waivers on some of their problems.

The bottom line: a total 6.6 million potential recruits from all men and women in the 32 million-person age group.

In the budget year that ended last September, 15 percent of recruits required a waiver in order to be accepted for active duty services - or about 11,000 people of some 73,000 recruited.

Most waivers were for medical problems. Some were for misdemeanors such as public drunkenness, resisting arrest or misdemeanor assault - prompting criticism that the Army is lowering its standards.

This year the Army is trying to recruit 80,000 people; all the services are recruiting about 180,000.

And about the tattoos: They are not supposed to be on your neck, refer to gang membership, be offensive, or in any way conflict with military standards on integrity, respect and team work. The military is increasingly giving waivers for some types of tattoos, officials said.

---

On the Net:

Defense Department career and aptitude exploration site: http://www.asvabprogram.com

http://apnews1.iwon.com/article/20060312/D8GA9NT82.html

[Makkonnen]

Regular Army hits recruit goal, Reserve short
Reuters

WASHINGTON - The active-duty U.S. Army, which fell short in recruiting in fiscal 2005, met its February goal, the Pentagon said on Friday, but fell short in the number of recruits netted in the year to date compared to last year.

Four of the military's six reserve components -- the part-time Army Reserve, Navy Reserve, Marine Corps Reserve and Air National Guard -- missed their February goals. The active-duty Navy, Air Force and Marines met their quotas.

The regular Army has achieved its recruiting goals for nine months in a row. It sent 6,114 recruits into boot camp in February, topping its goal of 6,000.

The Army has attracted 25,973 recruits through the first five months of fiscal 2006 -- 3 percent ahead of its goal -- with an aim of getting 80,000 by September 30.

But the Army had attracted 27,440 recruits through the first five months of fiscal 2005, a recruiting year in which it ended up about 7,000 short of its goal of 80,000.

Because of the way the Army has structured its monthly goals, nearly 70 percent of its fiscal 2006 recruiting mission must be accomplished from March through September.

Fiscal 2005, when the Army missed its annual goal for the first time since 1999, was one of the weakest recruiting performances for the regular Army since the birth of the all-volunteer military in 1973 during the tumult of the Vietnam War era.

Army officials attributed the problems in part to wariness among young people about joining up during the Iraq war.

The Army Reserve came up 3 percent short in February, bringing in 2,279 against a goal of 2,359, and is now 1 percent shy of its year-to-date goal, officials said.

The Army Reserve, which also missed its 2005 recruiting goal, is a force of part-time soldiers who train periodically and can be called by the Pentagon to active duty from their civilian lives in emergencies. Thousands of Army Reserve soldiers have been mobilized to serve in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The part-time Army National Guard got 6,583 recruits to beat its goal of 6,536, and remained ahead of its year-to-date goal.

The Army has added recruiters and enlistment incentives, and in December hired a new advertising agency to handle its recruiting campaign.

The U.S. Army Recruiting Command last month unveiled a new incentive for recruits who agree to enter the Army Reserve quickly after signing up, rather than delaying their entry.

The command offered a cash enlistment bonus of up to $10,000 for recruits who enlist for at least three years and agree to report for Army Reserve training within 30 days of enlistment. Recruits can add this to other enlistment incentives up to a maximum of a $20,000 bonus, officials said.

Copyright 2006 Reuters News Service. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

Copyright © 2006 ABC News Internet Ventures

[Pitchdogg]

Having being a former Marine recruiter, the Army definitely doesn't speak for all the branches when it comes to the quality of the individual recruit. There are such things a waivers, and they push the collective envelope when it comes to them. For example, an individual that is off Ritalin who shows academic progress over a period of time, is eligible for enlistment.
An individual that had Asthma or Asthmatic symptoms up to the age of 13 could be eligible for enlistment. An individual with up to 5 tattoos no larger than the size of his/her hand may be eligible for enlistment. (granted that they aren't on the neck) And for all you weed heads out there, most applicants are asked how many times they have ever smoked. Most if they are smart lie. But I have seen waivers approved for individuals that have smoked in excess of 1000 times. Yes, we would like to have the most capable, ideal applicant, however it is not so easy. And the Army wanna talk about standards, hell WHAT STANDARDS???? :smh:

[Winchesta Heat]

On top of all that, the potential recruits who would make it don't want to, they don't want to end up mixed up in this bullshit we've become mired in (Iraq).

[Greed]

Duty and tuition draw US military recruits
By Jane Sutton
Sun May 7, 2:05 PM ET

The Iraq war has made it tougher to sign up young men and women for the all-volunteer U.S. military, but a group of new recruits said they were drawn by a sense of duty, a chance for adventure, career training and college tuition benefits.

Coast Guard recruit Joshua Gonzalez, a Miami native nearing his 18th birthday, said he joined the military in part because his career options seemed limited.

"Jobs are hard to find in Miami, I can't pay for college."

Gonzalez was one of 144 recruits sworn into the Army, Navy, Marines, Air Force or Coast Guard during a ceremony in a sweltering hangar at the Opa-locka Airport near Miami last week.

Gonzalez said he chose the Coast Guard in part because he wanted to defend his homeland, from its own shores.

His mother, Linda Murray, watched the ceremony proudly from a row of folding chairs and tried not to dwell on the chance her son could be assigned to a ship on Iraq war duty in the Middle East.

"I think it's a good thing, an honorable thing. It's his duty," Murray said. "It's a big contribution. Then if they don't come back, it's a sacrifice. You kind of tuck that deep down. ... You've got to have some faith."

The swearing-in ceremony was part of the annual McDonald's Air & Sea Show that continued through Sunday in south Florida, where the military's elite parachutists and precision flying teams showed their skills and high-tech hardware, partly to attract recruits.

While the other branches of the military exceeded their recruiting goals last year, the Army, which provides the bulk of U.S. ground forces in the Iraq war, missed its target by about 9 percent and lagged slightly behind last year's numbers during the first half of fiscal 2006.

One recruiter said the newest members of the military were aware of the possible dangers.

"They know what they're getting into. They watch the news all the time," said Navy recruiter Mack Pierce.

'GREAT OPPORTUNITY'

Rene Carbonell said he joined the Army and asked for an infantry assignment because he wants to be on the front lines.

"I wanted to be right there where everything is. I'm ready to go," said Carbonell, 18. "I want to serve my country. I think that's what most people want to do when they join the military."

Amos Aristil, 19, a Haitian-born U.S. citizen, said he joined the Navy to help protect his new country and to train in the medical corps to become a dental assistant.

"It is a great opportunity for me," Aristil said.

Shakita Cook, 18, said she joined the Army in part because the college tuition benefits will help her study for a career in criminal justice. But also because, "I want to go overseas, I want to see different stuff."

Quasan Browne, an 18-year-old Air Force recruit, said he joined because, "Someone has to do it."

"We've got to protect our families. War is not a problem, as long as we can keep everyone at home safe."

Browne wants to work in the Air Force Intelligence Service and likes the idea of launching into a career now rather than spending years in college and then starting a job hunt.

"They're going to give me college credits while I get the experience. ... I'm going to get my life started sooner," he said.

"I know there's a risk. You've got to take a chance," Browne said.

Joshua Vakili, a 20-year-old Marine recruit with his hair shaved into a mohawk, said it might be "a bad time to join," but that he wanted to do something that would push him hard.

"I always wanted to do something very tough," said Vakili, who hopes to join a Special Forces reconnaissance unit, serve 20 years in the military and then join the CIA or FBI.

"It doesn't bother me that much that a war's going on. It scares me sometimes but I'm not too worried," Vakili said.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060507/ts_nm/arms_recruits_dc;_ylt=AlnzMAoUNsAktJietvhihCRZ.3QA ;_ylu=X3oDMTA5aHJvMDdwBHNlYwN5bmNhdA--

[Greed]

Without a draft most affluent American don't give a damn about the Iraq occupation body count. It dosen't affect their lives at all; the have "no skin in the game". My 17 year old just hit-me-up for $2,100. for a fully loaded new Dell Inspiron E1705 Duo Core notebook computer. I reminded him again how fortunate he is.

......

[Greed]

AP IMPACT: Some lawmakers send few to academies

By BRIAN WITTE, Associated Press Writer
20 mins ago

ANNAPOLIS, Md. – As the nation's military academies try to recruit more minorities, they aren't getting much help from members of Congress from big-city districts with large numbers of blacks, Hispanics and Asians.

From New York to Chicago to Los Angeles, lawmakers from heavily minority areas rank at or near the bottom in the number of students they have nominated for appointment to West Point, the U.S. Naval Academy or the U.S. Air Force Academy, according to an Associated Press review of records from the past five years.

High school students applying to the academies must be nominated by a member of Congress or another high-ranking federal official. Congressional nominations account for about 75 percent of all students at the academies.

Academy records obtained by the AP through the Freedom of Information Act show that lawmakers in roughly half of the 435 House districts nominated more than 100 students each during the five-year period.

But Rep. Nydia Velazquez of New York City, chairwoman of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, nominated only four students, the lowest among House members who served the entire five-year period. Rep. Charles Rangel, whose New York City district includes Harlem, was second-lowest, with eight nominations. And House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, whose San Francisco district is 29 percent Asian, was also near the bottom, with 19.

In fact, the bottom 20 House members were all from districts where whites make up less than a majority.

"It's beyond my imagination how someone that has the ability to nominate doesn't do it," Craig Duchossois said last December at his final meeting as chairman of the Naval Academy's Board of Visitors.

He noted what an academy appointment means: a free four-year education and a guaranteed job as an officer for at least five years after graduation.

Velazquez, Rangel and Pelosi would not comment or did not return calls.

Academy leaders and some on Capitol Hill do not put all the blame on the politicians, pointing out that some districts might have a shortage of qualified candidates, either because students have not gotten the necessary academic preparation from their struggling schools, they are unaware of the opportunity, or they are uninterested.

But while the burden is ultimately on students to apply, academy leaders and others said elected officials should be doing more to publicize the opportunity by doing such things as visiting schools.

The academies have approached dozens of members of the Congressional Black Caucus and the Congressional Hispanic Caucus to discuss attracting more minority students.

Also, the military recently put together a how-to booklet on minority recruiting and sent it to all congressional offices, said Charles Garcia, chairman of the Air Force Academy's board of visitors.

In addition, the Air Force Academy has begun flying in congressional staff members from districts with few minority nominations for lessons on recruiting, Garcia said.

"We train them on 'Here are the things other districts have done that is successful,'" he said. "We are hopeful that will have a huge impact going forward."

Rangel, Velazquez and most of the rest of the lawmakers who have made the fewest nominations have been among the loudest critics of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Whether that is a factor in their low number of nominations is unclear. Rep. Elijah Cummings, a member of the House Out of Iraq Caucus, nevertheless nominated 128 students over the past five years from his Baltimore district, which is 64 percent black.

With help from academy officials, Cummings' staff makes a presentation each spring to schools in his district about how to qualify and apply for an academy nomination. Cummings also designates staffers to respond to questions about the application process, the congressman said through a spokesman.

"There is an openness and a willingness to reach out and help in Cummings' staff that you don't see in the others," said Air Force Maj. Roger Gauret, an instructor in Baltimore Polytechnic Institute's junior ROTC program. "They work it and they make it happen."

While lawmakers can offer assistance, Cummings stressed that it is up to students to seek a nomination, just as they are responsible for taking the right math and science courses, participating in extracurricular activities and keeping in shape.

Rep. Maxine Waters, whose district includes heavily Hispanic and black south Los Angeles and who is among the 20 lowest in nominations, said the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have made young people in her district question military service. She said her efforts to reach out to high school students have not been very successful.

"In the olden days, parents would even say to young African-Americans, `You aren't doing anything. You don't have a job. Why don't you join the service?'" said Waters, who has nominated 14 students in the past five years. "They don't quite do that anymore."

James Burk, a professor of sociology at Texas A&M University whose research focuses on the military's relationship to society, said many minorities have opposed the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. "Opposition to this war stokes the memory of Vietnam — the memory of public debate about minority casualties in Vietnam," Burk said.

Academy leaders have struggled to make the racial makeup of the military's officer corps more closely resemble that of its enlisted ranks. The disparity is greatest in the Navy, with minorities making up about 48 percent of the enlisted ranks and just 21 percent of the officer corps.

The academies can cite some recent progress. The freshman class of 1,230 at the Naval Academy in Annapolis, Md., includes 435 students who are black, Hispanic, Asian American, Native American or part of another minority group. That is about 35 percent, up from 28 percent the year before.

At the U.S. Military Academy at West Point, N.Y., there are 330 minorities in the freshman class of about 1,300, or about 25 percent, up from 22 percent in 2008. The freshman class of 1,376 at the Air Force Academy in Colorado Springs, Colo., includes 312 minorities, or 23 percent, also a slight increase from the previous class.

House members are limited to nominating students in their districts. Lawmakers can have five students from their districts at each academy at a time, and they can nominate up to 10 students for each vacant seat. That makes it possible to nominate up to 150 students for 15 seats over four years, if all of the seats are vacant.

The bottom 20 members of Congress include Rep. Bobby Rush of Chicago, an Army veteran who has nominated just 12 students in five years. Sharon Jenkins, a spokeswoman for Rush, said that he wants to raise awareness in his inner-city district but that people rarely apply for nominations.
"He cares about this," Jenkins said. "He knows that those numbers are not what he'd like to see."

Ara Carmel Quinones, an 18-year-old senior at Baltimore Polytech, said she has had her eye on attending the Naval Academy since her freshman year, when she joined junior ROTC at the inner-city magnet school.

Quinones, who immigrated from the Phillipines, said the prospect of a prestigious education at no cost is a big enough draw that if she doesn't get in, she plans to enter the reserves and reapply.

"It's amazing what they can offer you for free," she said. "It's like maybe a Harvard or what one of the best colleges can offer you."
___
Associated Press writer Susanne M. Schafer in Fort Jackson, S.C., contributed to this report.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091120/ap_on_re_us/us_military_academies_minorities

[thoughtone]

But, is that the real point of the thread http://64.255.174.200/board/images/icons/icon5.gif?http://64.255.174.200/board/images/icons/icon5.gif?http://64.255.174.200/board/images/icons/icon5.gif?

QueEx

QueEx, haven't you figured out Greed yet? It's not too difficult.

[Greed]

QueEx, haven't you figured out Greed yet? It's not too difficult.
I completely agree. I'm the most transparent poster here.

[thoughtone]

I completely agree. I'm the most transparent poster here.

Thank you QueEx.