Also, sorry to hear in four years you won't care anymore.
AND THE OLD CLINTON REGIME WILL BE
NM
Pub regime - loser game
The dems don't have a large enough majority to override a presidential veto. They don't have enough votes in the senate to override a filibuster. Therefore, the pubs can kill their legislation, STILL.
Funny how regime change....
is the worst sin possible if a Republican suggests it...but such a GOOD idea when Democrats suggest it....is North Korea the new Iraq?? Hil is talking regime change in North Korea...already, and they have been in power how many weeks? This is rich!!
Perhaps you should do some studying. SOS all over again, just like all the lies leading to regime change in Iraq, except this time with NUKES. Once again, Bush believes he knows the Iranian people and thinks he can predict how they will respond. Bush's messianic vision is labeled as worrisome, which is a rather kind description of this President.
You really should read the entire article, but I doubt that you will. It's likely to actually cause you to think.
http://www.newyorker.com/press
Issue of 2006-04-17 Posted 2006-04-08
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
April 8, 2006
THIS WEEK IN
THE NEW YORKER
PRESS CONTACTS: Perri Dorset, (212) 286-5898 Daniel Kile, (212) 286-5996 Maria Cereghino, (212) 286-7936
The Bush Administration’s Plan For Iran
“The Bush Administration, while publicly advocating diplomacy in order to stop Iran from pursuing a nuclear weapon, has increased clandestine activities inside Iran and intensified planning for a possible major air attack,” Seymour M. Hersh reports in the April 17, 2006, issue of The New Yorker (“The Iran Plans,” p. 30). Moreover, he writes, “There is a growing conviction among members of the United States military, and in the international community, that President Bush’s ultimate goal in the nuclear confrontation with Iran is regime change.” One former senior intelligence official tells Hersh that Bush and others in the White House have come to view Iran’s President, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, as a potential Adolf Hitler. “That’s the name they’re using,” he says. A senior Pentagon adviser on the war on terror says, “This White House believes that the only way to solve the problem is to change the power structure in Iran, and that means war.” The danger, he adds, is that “it also reinforces the belief inside Iran that the only way to defend the country is to have a nuclear capability.” The former senior intelligence official, referring to activity at three U.S. military facilities, says, “The planning is enormous.” He depicts it as hectic and operational—far beyond the contingency work that is routinely done. One former defense official tells Hersh that the military planning was premised on a belief that “a sustained bombing campaign in Iran will humiliate the religious leadership and lead the public to rise up and overthrow the government.” He adds, “I was shocked when I heard it, and asked myself, ‘What are they smoking?’ ” A government consultant with close ties to civilians in the Pentagon confirms that undercover units are working with minority groups in Iran, and that while one goal is to have “eyes on the ground,” the broader aim is to “encourage ethnic tensions” and undermine the regime.
Hersh reports, “In recent weeks, the President has quietly initiated a series of talks on plans for Iran with a few key senators and members of Congress, including at least one Democrat.” A senior member of the House Appropriations Committee, who did not take part in the meetings but has discussed their content with his colleagues, tells Hersh that the Administration is “reluctant to brief the minority.” He adds, “The people they’re briefing are the same ones who led the charge on Iraq.... There’s no pressure from Congress” not to take military action. “The only political pressure is from the guys who want to do it.” Speaking of President Bush, the House member said, “The most worrisome thing is that this guy has a messianic vision.”
Hersh also reveals that one of the options under consideration involves the possible use of “a bunker-buster tactical nuclear weapon, such as the B61-11, to insure the destruction of Iran’s main centrifuge plant, at Natanz.” The former senior intelligence official tells Hersh that the attention given to the nuclear option has created serious misgivings inside the military and that some officers have talked about resigning after an attempt to remove the nuclear option from the evolving war plans in Iran failed. Hersh writes, “The Pentagon adviser on the war on terror confirmed that some in the Administration were looking seriously at this option.... He also confirmed that some senior officers and officials were considering resigning over the issue.” The adviser explains, “There are very strong sentiments within the military against brandishing nuclear weapons against other countries.”
The Pentagon adviser warns, as do many others, that bombing Iran could provoke “a chain reaction” of attacks on American facilities and citizens throughout the world: “What will 1.2 billion Muslims think the day we attack Iran?” he asks. He tells Hersh that any attack might also reignite Hezbollah. “If we go, the southern half of Iraq will light up like a candle,” he says. A retired four-star general tells Hersh that, despite the eight thousand British troops in the region, “the Iranians could take Basra with ten mullahs and one sound truck.” “If you attack,” a high-ranking diplomat in Vienna tells Hersh, “Ahmadinejad will be the new Saddam Hussein of the Arab world, but with more credibility and more power. You must bite the bullet and sit down with the Iranians.” The diplomat went on, “There are people in Washington who would be unhappy if we found a solution. They are still banking on isolation and regime change. This is wishful thinking.” He adds, “The window of opportunity is now.”
Also this week: In “A Church Asunder” (p. 44), Peter J. Boyer reports that the election of Gene Robinson as the first openly gay bishop of the Episcopal Church “posed the biggest crisis for Anglicanism since the Reformation, and brought the worldwide church to the edge of schism.” Boyer writes that while a belief in the power of compromise has always permeated the Anglican faith, to several conservative bishops the move “pushed the Anglican notion of comprehensiveness beyond its historically implied limits. What the Church had affirmed, in the view of these traditionalists, was not just a different expression of Christianity but a different religion altogether.” Bishop Robert Duncan, of Pittsburgh, led a small delegation of twenty bishops in protest the day of Robinson’s affirmation and has since reached out for support from the worldwide Anglican community, and specifically from bishops in the Global South, who tend to be far more conservative. Boyer writes, “More than half of all Anglicans live in Africa, South America, and Asia.... There are more Anglicans in Kenya (roughly three million) than there are Episcopalians in the U.S.... The balance of power has shifted dramatically.” While Anglicanism has no global hierarchy as in the Catholic Church, Duncan hopes that through an alliance with the Global South, he and like-minded bishops can convince the worldwide Anglican Communion that the Protestant Episcopal Church of the United States of America, or ecusa ... has already departed from the faith, and that an alternative body of orthodox Episcopalians should be recognized as the true church in America.” Boyer writes, “Duncan says that his battle is not with Gene Robinson, or even over the issue of homosexuality, but with what he considers a radical reinterpretation of the faith by the liberal church.” He says that the future may hold many unpleasant legal battles, “And the question that the state courts are going to have to figure out is, ‘Who are the Episcopalians.’ ” Boyer writes, “Gene Robinson watches these developments with a mixture of sadness and alarm.” He tells Boyer, “Bob Duncan wants to ally our church with the church of Kenya, where the primate there said that, when I was consecrated, Satan entered the church. What most people don’t realize is that homosexuality is something that I am, it’s not something that I do.... We’re not talking about taking a liberal or conservative stance on a particular issue; we’re talking about who I am.” Later, he adds, “I have to tell you—I felt called by God to come out. It seems to me that if God stands for anything, God stands for integrity. And to be a priest, calling other people to integrity, when you’re not exercising it yourself—it’ll kill you.”
Plus: Hendrik Hertzberg, in Comment, on the drawbacks of the Bush Administration’s health-care plan (p. 25); Adam Gopnik on “The Gospel of Judas,” a recently released translation (p. 80); Alec Wilkinson on Pete Seeger and on a new album inspired by his work by Bruce Springsteen (p. 44); Cynthia Zarin on the works of Maurice Sendak (p. 38); David Denby on the new films “The Notorious Bettie Page” and “Friends with Money” (p. 86); John Lahr on the life of playwright Clifford Odets (p.72); and fiction by Bernard MacLaverty (p. 66)
The April 17, 2006, issue of The New Yorker goes on sale at newsstands beginning Monday, April 10th.
In talking with my husband over the weekend, he said one thing that sticks out in my mind.
If Obama wins, he will try to implement all his socalist programs. That's just one little step away from Communism.
If that happens....if that happens, my husband said we would become "good little communists and let them take care of us."
I looked at him aghast, and thought he was joking.
He wasn't.
I said, but we make too much money to be taken care of. We're considered middle class (i.e., around $60,000 a year lately, used to be 80).
He said we'd both quit our jobs, and let the government take care of us.
We'll be good little communists...
I'd rather shoot myself. Communism is not a
that sneaks up behind you in the middle of the night. There are other ways to achieve the security you refer to 90 miles off our coast. Starting another cold war with communism is not one of them. I will mention but a few undesireable consequences of economic sanctions here.
1. Increases poverty, starvation and disease.
2. Harms US businesses
3. Angers other countries as a result of restrictions inadvertently placed on them
4. Leaders in sanctioned countries blame the US for the country's economic problems and garners support from the population against a "common enemy"
5. Offshore banks, shell companies and money-laundering emerge
6. Frozen assets amount to theft
7. Hyperinflation
8. Increase in criminal activities
9. Unenforceable
Please cite an instance where sanctions have actually worked.
You have already voted for communism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USA_PATRIOT_Act
Don't think we have to worry about communism
Russia is in worse shape than we are. From CNBC, as of yesterday, we were down 17%, Russia 42%. I can't remember if that was the currency value or markets. Maybe you can check. I'm trying to work. LOL
He wrote about Jews and communism. sm
He read many of Henry Ford's writings when he (Hitler) was in prison. He included these thoughts/tenents in Mein Kampf.
Scoff at the idea of communism if you want to...
however, there are people on this board defending a law enforcement background check with results released to the public as what someone deserved for daring to ask Obama a question. Now in all honesty...that sounds a lot more like a communist country than the good old USA. And I would be saying the same thing if a background check was ordered and results released to the public on a democrat who asked John McCain a question. And so would all the Obama supporters here. The ACLU would be ALL over it.
Sounds a LOT more like communism that the good old USA...and that does not alarm a lot of folks on this board.
Just hard to believe how many socialists/communists there are out there and a lot here too.
Um, yeah. I think it's called Communism.
NM
Google has 637,000 entries on Jews and communism. sm
But I guess you read the one history book that didn't have that in it. Unbelievable.
What part of 60-plus days of his first 100 days...sm
don't you understand. I think it's obvious to anyone actually researching his movements what his main goals are - and I don't in my wildest dreams see how in the world he can keep spending as he has been and wants to continue doing and cut the deficit in half by end of his term. IMO his chances are running out quickly. God help us all!
after two days
of contemplation, I offer my opinion regarding the repub veep. It is all just so much manufactured hype. Unfortunately, repubs have had nothing to get excited about and had to watch on the sidelines as a hope and delight swept through the nation. The repubs did kind of a bizarro world imitation of the real movement and forced McCain to pick a person he had met twice to create headlines. Unfortunately, the hoopla is based on nothing. It will die down soon and the Obama train will keep on rolling. The Jewish people will certainly not vote for a person who supported Pat Buchanan the rabid anti-semite. Our older veterans will not take the chance of having a person in power who has not thought about foreign policy because she was too busy suing Bush to get the polar bears taken off the endangered list. Mark my words, in 2 weeks the repubs will be chasing some pre-school friend of Obama in order to create another sensation.
I think most people have made up their minds, or are close to it. But we get pounded every single day, by the candidates themselves, analyses of the candidates, ads that are misleading (by both parties, I believe, at times)....smear tactics...he said, she said.....I think that they meant..... etc......well, you all get my drift.
I'm to the point that I really only want to watch the debates, to see how they hold up there.
Anyways, I'm super busy this week, and anytime I even venture into where the TV is, my husband is watching financial shows on in the background, and gosh darn it, even all they do is interject political views.
Is it almost November yet???
The days of (sm)
ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country are long gone. Now it's all about gimmie. You're right, Kendra, it should be serious and respectful, but I'm afraid there's not much of that left these days, particularly for those in the government.
With less than two days to go
I just want to say a few final things. First off, I respect everyone's opinions on this board. The great thing about America is that we have the right to free speech. I just hope that we continue to have that right.
Tomorrow is supposed to be a day of fasting and prayer for those who do this. I hope that everyone who believes will be praying to God to put the right candidate in the white house. While many of us feel that it would be God's choice to have Mccain, there have been to many times when I have thought that God would have it one way and it's been the other. While I know that based on the Bible God would want me to vote against abortion and gay marriage, I still believe that if Obama wins he will be able to use him. If anything to bring the church to their knees and really seek forgiveness and revival.
While I am not voting for Obama, I will pray that he is kept safe. There are many people who will want to harm him simply for the color of his skin, and in this day in age that is awful, but still true nonetheless.
I hope that no matter the outcome of this election, we citizens can learn to put differences and party lines aside and work together to better this nation. Whoever wins is stepping into a big mess THAT BOTH SIDES HAVE CREATED and at some point we are ALL responsible for.
Lastly, I hope that after the election the tempers and name calling on this board can cease. We need to debate without bashing. I am just as guilty of getting hot tempered as anyone else, and I apologize for anytime I was out of line.
We are still in for some rough times, folks. I pray that God will keep us and help us through these troubled times.
Last but not least....
Good Luck to Mccain supporters, well wishes to Obama supporters! javascript:editor_insertHTML('text',''); LOL
76 more days
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SESr9D5Gd7A
Those were the days
There is no doubt in my mind that MQ is more profitable for the top level than TL ever was. This is why it makes me so angry when people bash unions. Without workers banding together and bargaining greed takes over and rich is never rich enough apparently. I saw that a-hole Bill Gates testifying before Congress that he needed more top level (CHEAPER) workers because there weren't enough qualified Americans......sound familiar? Unions may not be perfect but every benefit older workers like you and I received was won by the sweat of union workers who were willing to stand up for what was right and the benefits they won benefited even MTs, whether the newbies care to agree or not. Unfortunately the unions have also become greedy and they care more about dues paying members than the rights of workers. Just look at AAMT or whatever they call themselves now, they don't give a hoot about American MTs, they care about dues paying members whether they be Americans or Ethiopians!!! AAARRRG. I'm going to bed now. I have a presentation to make to the Kiwanis at noon tomorrow which I had better get up early and prepare for or maybe I'll just wing it. LOL
Only 16 more days! Only 15 more days to go! 100 Days
Interesting analysis. I'll just link to it since it would take far too long to list all of Obama's screwups here.
I will not vote republican for multiple reasons going back to the Reagun administration and I think Palin is a joke. It's like Dubya trying to put Harriett Myers on the supreme court - WHAT!!!!! Lies? Lets talk about lies. Like being led into a war with no end in sight due to LIES. Our children being slaughtered in that country for nothing - except maybe oil. Tax cuts? I don't know about you, but I'm not in the upper 10% tax bracket, so I didn't reap any benefits from the so-called "tax breaks." Lets not forget the worst deficit this country has ever seen all due to Dubya's reckless spending. And never, never, never forget Katrina. That was genocide. Let's toss in Bill Clinton's "sexual misconduct." Hmmm.....I don't want anyone in my bedroom. That was Hillary's problem - not the country's. But we have Foley playing footsie with the congressional pages, whatshisname and his wide stance in airport bathrooms and don't forget that religious nut who was good buddies with Dubya and visited the white house on occasion that was snorting meth and having sex with a male prostitute. How's that for family values????? No child left behind? What a crock. We have been manipulated over and over by the current administration as well as by the media. They swallowed the Kool-Aid, too; until Katrina. It took that disaster to open their eyes, but they seem to have closed again. We have the patriot act, no habeas corpus and if the republicans get in again, they will line up the supreme court with their right-wing fanatics who think that everyone should abide by their MORAL rules. You cannot legislate morality. And anyone with half a brain would realize that abstinence does not WORK. Palin's daughter for example. Take away birth control, take away abortion - who's going to pay for all of these kids? The republicans aren't going to fund any programs to help them. Lets just step back 50 years and start all over again. My God! Wake up! You'll find more babies in dumpsters and illegal abortions will wend their way back into society creating more misery and death. I value my rights. I value the right to decide what is best for me. I don't think it is the right of our government to determine the outcome of my life. I guess it does take 8 years to ruin a country. Look how divisive everyone is. Voting republican is voting against your own best interests. The trickle down theory DOES NOT WORK. You will not benefit from any of these proposals - they are proposed to keep big corporations and greed on the upswing. My parents retired with good pensions - will you? My parents had great insurance that paid the WHOLE bill - do you? My mother made more money when she retired (20 years ago) than I do currently. Wages have not gone up. Gas has gone up. Groceries have gone up. The cost of living has gone up as well as insurance policies, medications. Corporate America treats its employees like slaves. There is no compassion - just greed. Vote republican and you will fall on your own sword. Bill Maher said it best "Americans are stupid and are getting stupider; they deserve the leader they elect." I am praying Obama who graduated from Harvard due to his own sweat and hard work gets elected. He wasn't born with a silver spoon in his mouth and he knows what it is like to be on the ugly end of the stick.
Why won't Sarah Palin answer a spontaneous question from the press? What is this candidate hiding? How date the elitist repub party think they can railroad a candidate by us by dressing her in a skirt.
Meet the Press, Time Magazine, Today Show, Newsweek, George Stepanoupoulous. No soft balls like the View, Barbra WaaWaa or Fox propaganda machine. We must stand up and demand answers from the repubs. This is OUR country - demand accountability.
These campaigns can fly someone across the country in mere hours, yet he TALKS about going for 3 days? Of course, there's speculation that Obama wants to pilfer that house to find whatever documents are there that prove he wasn't born in the US. Before you start flaming (like I really care, anyway), a life-long ACLU Democrat, etc. (Berg) has an interview on michaelsavage.com (the soundfile). I heard it yesterday so didn't need to access it, but a friend of mine who has been on this issue for ages wanted to hear it. Savages w/s was bombarded. It may be available now.
When Rush's Mother was at the end of her life, he broadcast for the duration in secret from Cape Gerardo. I think it was 2 months. It's something you just do and don't need to announce it to everyone.
Military's Recruiting Troubles Extend to Affluent War Supporters
By Terry M. Neal washingtonpost.com Staff Writer Monday, August 22, 2005; 8:00 AM
There was an eye-opening article in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette a few days ago that explored the increasing difficulty the military is having recruiting young people to enlist. As has been well reported in many newspapers, including The Washington Post, the Army and Marines are having a particularly tough time meeting recruitment objectives, in part because of Americans' concern about the war in Iraq.
When you dig deeper into the reason for this phenomenon, it turns out that parents of potential soldiers and sailors are becoming one of the biggest obstacles facing military recruiters. Even top military officials acknowledge this and unveiled a new series of ads this spring targeted at influencers such as parents, teachers and coaches.
But the Post-Gazette raises another issue. There has been much talk about the relationship between race and ethnicity and military recruitment. But what about social and economic class? Are wealthier Americans, who are more likely to be Republicans and therefore more likely to support the war, stepping up to the plate and urging their children and others from their communities to enlist?
Unfortunately, there has been no definitive study on this subject. But it appears that the affluent are not encouraging their children and peers to join the war effort on the battlefield.
The writer of the Post-Gazette article, Jack Kelly, explored this question in his story that ran on
Aug. 11. Kelly wrote of a Marine recruiter, Staff Sgt. Jason Rivera, who went to an affluent suburb outside of Pittsburgh to follow up with a young man who had expressed interest in enlisting. He pulled up to a house with American flags displayed in the yard. The mother came to the door in an American flag T-shirt and openly declared her support for the troops.
But she made it clear that her support only went so far.
Military service isn't for our son, she told Rivera. It isn't for our kind of people.
The Post-Gazette piece focused on parental disapproval of military recruitment efforts, and dealt only tangentially with the larger question of class. What we do know is that recruiting is down across the board and that both the Army and Marines have fallen significantly behind their recruiting goals.
This is what the Army's hired advertising company,
Leo Burnett, had to say about the ads targeting influencers that it began running in April: Titled 'Dinner Conversation,' 'Two Things,' 'Good Training' and 'Listening' (Spanish-language ad), the commercials portray moments ranging from a son telling his mother he's found someone to pay for college, to a father praising his son who has just returned from Basic Training for the positive ways in which he's changed. They capture the questions, hopes and concerns parents have about a career serving the United States of America and include families from many different backgrounds.
I asked Army spokeswoman Maj. Elizabeth Robbins for further explanation on the intent of the ads.
Clearly it was to talk to influencers, she said. She said studies have shown that today's young people yearn to serve their country in one way or another. The problem is that today the people who influence their decisions are less likely than they were in past generations to recommend [military service].
Why?
In part because the economy is strong, said Robbins. In part because they are concerned about the war. And in part because fewer of them have a direct relationship with the military or have ever served.
So would it be logical to conclude that, if the strong economy is one of the reasons it is more difficult to recruit, the most affluent parents should be the most difficult to reach? After all, their children have more options, including college, than less affluent parents? And if that's true, isn't it somewhat ironic that the military is paying millions of dollars ultimately to influence the behavior of the parents who are among the most likely to be supportive of the war in Iraq?
I disagree with your premise, Robbins said, arguing that the military is represented strongly across the board by people of all income levels and faces challenges in recruiting at all income levels.
Referring to the Post-Gazette anecdote, she said, One woman saying stupid things does not a trend make.
Actually, I did have a premise, but it wasn't unshakable. But because neither the Army nor the Defense Department keeps detailed information about the household incomes of the people who join, it was not easy to prove or disprove.
So let's approach the issue this way: In the 2004 election, household income was a
pretty decent indicator of how one might vote. Voters from households making more than $50,000 a year favored Bush 56 percent to 43 percent. Voters making $50,000 or less favored Kerry 55 to 44 percent. Median household income as of 2003 was $43,318, according to the U.S. Census.
The wealthier you become, apparently, the more likely you are to vote Republican. The GOP advantage grows more pronounced for people from households making more than $100,000. People from households with incomes exceeding that amount voted for Bush over Kerry by 58 percent to 41 percent. Those from households making less than $100,000 favored Kerry over Bush 51 to 49 percent. And nearly two-thirds of voters from households making more than $200,000 favored Bush over Kerry.
Those making more than $100,000 made up only 18 percent of the electorate, which explains why Bush won by a narrow 2.5 percentage points in the general election.
This raises all sorts of complicated socioeconomic questions, such as whether the rich expect others to fight their wars for them. Or, asked another way, are they more likely to support the war in Iraq because their families are less likely to carry part of the burden?
Certainly, there are no absolutes here. Many of the wealthy are Democrats, some of whom support the war. Some of whom oppose it. Many of the poor and working class are Republicans, and support the GOP on Iraq.
By looking at long-term trends, it seems logical that some of those most likely to support Bush and his Iraq policy are also those least likely to encourage their children to go into the military at wartime. And it raises questions, such as, if you are among those most likely to support the war, shouldn't you be among those most likely to encourage your child to serve in the military? Shouldn't your socioeconomic group be the most receptive to the recruiters' call? And would there be a recruitment problem at all if the affluent put their money where their mouth is?
Several social scientists have studied the question of economics and class in military enlistment. Many of these studies don't look at the officer ranks, which might tend to counter some of the class argument. But officers, of course, make up a relatively small portion of the military.
Among the more recent studies was one done last year by Robert Cushing, a retired professor of sociology at the University of Texas at Austin. He tracked those who died in Iraq by geography and found that whites from small, mostly poor, rural areas made up a disproportionately large percentage of the
I talked to two other academicians who have studied the issue. Their conclusions, though reached prior to the war in Iraq, were helpful because of their understanding of the historical implications of the class question.
David R. Segal, director of the Center for Research on Military Organizations at the University of Maryland, said contrary to conventional wisdom both the poorest and the wealthiest people are underrepresented at the bottom of the military ranks, for completely different reasons. This trend held for both from the conscription years of Vietnam through at least the late 1990s.
Poorer people, he said, are likely to be kept out of the military by a range of factors, including higher likelihood of having a criminal record or academic deficiencies or health problems.
Back during Vietnam, the top [economic class] had access for means of staying out of the military, said Segal. The National Guard was known to be a well-to-do white man's club back then. People knew if you if joined the guard you weren't going to go to Vietnam. That included people like Dan Quayle and our current commander in chief. If you were rich, you might have found it easier to get a doctor to certify you as having a condition that precluded you from service. You could get a medical deferment with braces on your teeth, so you would go get braces -- something that was very expensive back then. The wealthy had more access to educational and occupational deferments.
Today's affluent merely see themselves as having more options and are not as enticed by financial incentives, such as money for college, Segal said.
The Army was able to provide socioeconomic data only for the 2002 fiscal year. Its numbers confirm Segal's findings that service members in the highest and lowest income brackets are underrepresented, but because those numbers chronicle enlistments in the year immediately following the 2001 terrorist attacks, it's difficult to ascertain whether this was a normal recruiting year.
Segal and Jerald G. Bachman, a research professor at the University of Michigan's Institute for Social Research, have studied the correlation between a parental education levels and likelihood for their offspring to enlist.
Examining data from early to mid-1990s, they created five categories, with one being the lowest level. Perhaps not surprisingly, they found the children of the most-educated parents -- those with post-graduate degrees -- were the least likely to join the military. The children of parents with high school diplomas were three times more likely to enlist.
One of the interesting phenomenon of today's politics is that, in general, Republicans tend to be more educated on average than Democrats, with a larger percentage either holding a bachelor's degree or having attended some college. But Democrats represent a larger portion of the super-educated -- that is, those holding graduate degrees. So Democrats are made up of the least and the most educated, with Republicans congregated largely near, but not at, the top.
So how did those near the top of the educational tree do in Segal's and Bachman's study? They were half as likely as those in group two to enlist. And because there are far more people who have been to college or have bachelor's degrees than there are people who have post-graduate degrees, the former group has far more political influence, just in sheer numbers.
While there have been changes in racial and ethnic enlistment trends, with the number of black recruits dropping precipitously since the Iraq war, Segal and Bachman said they've seen nothing to indicate significant changes in the class -- of which education levels is a prime indicator -- trends in the military.
Journalists can get themselves in trouble by drawing simplistic conclusions based on less-than-exhaustive research, and we won't do so here. But we can at least raise the question of whether the rich are more likely to support the war because their loved ones are less likely to die in it.
Man Rescued After 18 Days in Attic. NEW ORLEANS — Day after day, for more than two weeks, the 76-year-old man sat trapped and alone in his attic, sipping from a dwindling supply of water until it ran out. No food. No way out of a house ringed by foul floodwaters.
Without ever leaving home, Gerald Martin (search) lived out one of the most remarkable survival stories of Hurricane Katrina (search). Rescuers who found him Friday, as they searched his neighborhood by boat, were astounded at his good spirits and resiliency after 18 days without food or human contact.
It's an incredible story of survival, said Louie Fernandez, spokesman for the Federal Emergency Management Agency (search) search unit that carried out the rescue.
In recent days, search crews have been finding corpses by the dozens in the still-flooded neighborhoods of New Orleans (search), but not trapped survivors. The FEMA search-and-rescue boat navigating through the Eighth Ward didn't expect to find anyone alive at 6010 Painters St., but they planned to search the premises of a one-story wood house.
As the motor idled and the boat glided forward, they heard a voice.
Rwanda, 800,000 dead in 100 days. sm
They pleaded for help from the UN and Clinton. No one helped them.
Haven't been here in a couple days
I just saw this message and wanted to write back. I did vote for Clinton in his first term. I really liked what he was offering for the country. Was a better choice than Bush Sr. After 4 year of those 2 bozos (and the Gores) in there I voted for Dole (I think it was Dole running - its been too many years). Then when Mr. Stiff (gore) was running I thought no way, we finally are getting rid of those two ninny's so voted for Bush, then when Kerry ran I didn't vote cos I didn't like any. So I go back and forth. I read history. No matter what candidate you support, no matter how much you like them you have to be objective and look at the bad with the good and to me we need a person with better values than Clinton. We were so "zonked" (for lack of better term) with so many taxes with clintons were in it was awful. We never got ahead and never had anything. They showed exactly how much they cared about the low to middle income people - it's called NADA, nothing, zip, zilch, and screw you. They took care of their rich friends, lobbyist, and CEO executives while the rest of us literally got screw over big time. So, no I'm not left wing or right wing. I vote my conscious. Can't stand Rush Limbo, Hannity (the Leprecaun) and the absolute nonsense they speak. On the flip side I cannot stand the liberal talk shows either. I can't even think of the names of any of them cos I turned them off years ago and became a much better informed and calmer person. I just read both sides of opinions and make my own choices.
Really...143 days. I agree with Joe Biden.
"The job does not lend itself to on-the-job training."
There has been a big swing in past few days of
nm
marks the location of current message within thread
