A tenured English teacher at Annapolis tells ya'll what he really thinks of service academies.
Many pundits have suggested that the Republicans’ midterm gains were fueled by discontent not merely with the president or with the (improving) state of the economy, but with government in general and the need to fund its programs with taxes. Indeed, the Republican Party of recent decades, inspired by Ronald Reagan’s exhortation to “starve the [government] beast,” has been anti-tax and anti-government. Government programs, as many of their thinkers note, primarily exist to perpetuate their own existence. At the very least, they have to justify that existence.
In the spirit of hands across the aisle, I’d like to suggest that the first thing the new Republican majority devote itself to is not, say, the repeal of the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare), but to converting the four hugely expensive and underproductive U.S. service academies (Navy, Army, Air Force and Coast Guard) — taxpayer-funded undergraduate institutions whose products all become officers in the military — to more modest and functional schools for short-term military training programs, as the British have repurposed Sandhurst.
Continued on Page 49
#2
Yes - these 99 (since 9-11) only paid the blood price: Three of the 99 were civilians at time of death, and one (a full Colonel)was a suicide - but none of the rest died as REMFs in some backwater.
I doubt that the author could find an ROTC REGION - or a string of 35 years of OCS classes - since the Vietnam War - with that level of mortality.
I'd be interested to see the wartime casualty roll for the Ivy League since 2001.
#4
Yes let's make cheaper (in money) military caddemies and pay a higher price in blood. How about the authoir of the article serving under one of the ninety days wonders he is advocating?
#6
Raising and training of armies is mandated by the Constitution. Taking money from wealthier Americans to give health care to those who choose not to work is not.
This guy's whole argument, is, therefore, irrelevant and wrong.
Posted by: no mo uro ||
01/09/2015 5:53 Comments ||
Top||
#7
Well we could try the French system. To get into the French military academy you already have to have a four year Bachelors degree. The military academy adds the equivalent of a Masters to it. Of course the leftist infiltration has caused complaints from even the left oriented students.
#8
...I will give the guy this: get rid of the high-profile sports programs. You want to be a (FILL IN THE SPORT HERE) star and an officer, go to a Division I ROTC school.
Mike
Posted by: Mike Kozlowski ||
01/09/2015 6:48 Comments ||
Top||
#9
Sorry #5, (IMO) your table wins the FOAD award for imbecilic poor taste this morning.
#11
How about this, Mr. fake conservative-Gramscian-Quaker school (Haverford grad) professor?
If you agree to do the cuts to the social welfare state and government run healthcare FIRST, I'll agree to do some fat trimming to the military after.
What's that? I have to accept that the things I like get trimmed first, and trust that your side, which has NEVER cut the size of government, ever, will honor your commitment to trim also, and will do the right thing and get rid of the 50-75% of the nonmilitary public sector work force that needs to go away just to get to 1960 levels of government?
Sorry, Lucy. I think I've seen this football before. You'll get rid of the military AND use that money not for a tax rebate, or to pay down debt, but to hire even more useless government workers who will be lifelong Democrat campaign workers and voters.
Yes you will.
Liar.
Posted by: no mo uro ||
01/09/2015 8:09 Comments ||
Top||
#12
Can't have schools based upon merit and hard demanding work, no social promotion, no affirmative action, makes the civies look bad. The civies have got to protect their legacies (which is about the only thing they have to sell now).
#13
The academies were established, not really for warfare as the author asserts, but because there was no institution providing the engineering training necessary to conquer the continent as well as fight wars, a process the military led, barely, through the 19th century. 100 years later this process was complete and the academies unnecessary.
The academies foster a military caste distinct from the civilians they serve. After all, flag officers get almost guaranteed admission for their children. Some perk. We should be seeking to diminish the military-civilian divide, not widen it.
Nothing in the Constitution says the federal government should be in the education business. Time to get the government out of the unconstitutional degree granting business and into the constitutionally mandated military training business.
#14
The academies foster a military caste distinct from the civilians they serve.
Frontier Regulars: The United States Army and the Indian 1866-1891 by Robert M. Utley.
Chapter 4. The Army, Congress, and the People. Sherman’s frontier regulars endured not only the physical isolation of service at remote border posts; increasingly in the postwar years they found themselves isolated in attitudes, interests, and spirit from other institutions of government and society and, indeed from the American people themselves...Reconstruction plunged the army into tempestuous partisan politics. The frontier service removed it largely from physical proximity to population and, except for an occasional Indian conflict, from public awareness and interest. Besides public and congressional indifference and even hostility, the army found its Indian attitudes and policies condemned and opposed by the civilian officials concerned with Indian affairs and by the nation’s humanitarian community.
There has always been a disconnect as they're two different cultures, that's why that same Constitution calls for a separate set of laws governing land and naval forces. It is a different society. Too many people think WWII and that was the 'norm' when it was very much the exception to the American experience.
#18
Can't have schools based upon merit and hard demanding work, no social promotion, no affirmative action, makes the civies look bad. The civies have got to protect their legacies (which is about the only thing they have to sell now). Posted by Procopius2k
A lower [or elimination] of existing standards will accomplish the much needed 'leveling of the playing field.' BTW P2k, for a score of 300 on your next PT test, your time for the two mile run must be 13.5 minutes or less. Her's is 17 minutes. Please get on board.
Even though old Texas Stadium was imploded a while back, after a couple of shots of tequila while visiting the site, you'll swear you can still see the place where God watched his favorite teams play through the hole in the roof.
IRVING (CBS 11 NEWS) – Officials in Irving continue their search for what may be triggering the recent swarm of earthquakes dogging Dallas’ neighbor to the west.
On Wednesday, an additional 15 seismograph monitoring stations were installed in Irving, with seven more to come in the next few days.
The big questions about the quakes — why and why now? Some say it may have to do with the land under the old Texas Stadium, where the Dallas Cowboys once played.
“They [earthquakes] can happen anywhere at any time,” explained Dr. Len Kubicek, a geology professor at nearby North Lake College. He says the old Texas Stadium site is directly over the Balcones Fault, which runs from Irving to San Antonio, paralleling Interstate-35.
Kubicek says natural forces are tugging on the fault from high in the Rocky Mountains and the Gulf of Mexico. “If you start pulling on this and stretching it, in this case you’re going to get two normal faults,” he said, using wooden blocks to demonstrate the action. “The Balcones Fault was actually one of these, that type of fault, and it’s due to stretching.”
But it hasn’t moved in 100-million years. So why now? One theory, according to Dr. Kubicek, was imploding Texas Stadium. He says it could have forced a release of stress energy.
“And if you beat on this and shake it, it’s going to have a tendency to slide. Not the big ones [faults], but all the little ones,” he said. “It can splinter into several faults and one of these little faults, especially where that stadium was, you do an explosion on top of it and beat it up and down — it has a tendency to move.”
Another theory is that wastewater injected thousands of feet underground during hydraulic fracturing could be a culprit. Kubicek said, “Imagine if the water gets into this fault, it will lubricate the sides and cause it to start moving, even though it didn’t want to move before.”
But there are no such wells anywhere in Irving and both Kubicek and state officials doubt they’re the source.
The unknown is worrisome to local residents. “It’s just a little unsettling, I would say,” Van Hays told CBS 11 News. He says his nearby homeowners association social network lit up the past two days, worrying about the cause.
Hays once lived in California and says Irving’s quakes are different. “The ones in California are more like the rumblers, that just rumbled. But this one was more like a sonic ‘boom.’ It’s just ‘boom!’ Just a real jolt.”
And that difference is one reason Dr. Kubicek is optimistic… California’s San Andreas Fault is much different and small quakes there could precede the big one. But small quakes here on the Balcones, he believes, may be just the fault relieving stress.
“If you get a lot of small earthquakes you’re probably not going to ever get a big one. Because if you have a big earthquake you have to have a lot of stored energy; and if you keep having little ones you can’t store it.”
Along with journalists and writers everywhere, I mourn our murdered colleagues at Charlie Hebdo, the French satirical weekly that had the courage to poke fun at Islam, and paid a horrendous price. This is a new and terrible step on the part of the terrorists: they have threatened individual journalists for years and forced a few into hiding or witness protection. But the assault on the premises of a news organization and the massacre of its staff is an entirely new thing. We have never seen anything like this before in the sorry history of terrorism.
How will France respond?
France now faces an existential dilemma. By most independent estimates France now has a Muslim population of 6 million, or almost 10% of its 65 million people. If we assume that just 1% of this population are radicalized to the point of engaging in or providing support for terrorist activities, that is a pool of 60,000 individuals. We are not speaking of 60,000 potential bombers or shooters, but a support network that will allow a much smaller number of terrorists to blend into the broader population. In the “no-go” zones of France now effectively ruled by Muslim gangs, moreover, the terrorists can intimidate the Muslim population. France already has lost the capacity to police part of its territory, which means that it cannot conduct effective counter-terror operations.
#1
Arm all the non-mahometans, detonate the mosques, ban and burn the korans, execute or deport anyone advocating jihad, and wait 50 years for the hormones to die down.
Not going to happen, France is too PC. France is lost.
#2
Basically do what you had to do the last time you had to confront evil, go WWII. Messy, lots of death and destruction no matter how much you don't want to because the other alternative is submission and the end of your civilization. It's the unfortunate better of two evils because you've allow it to fester for so long following bankrupt policies based upon fantasy. Like the fictional vampire, you've invited the creature into your home.
MUCH of the world is reacting in shock and grief over the massacre at the offices of the satirical weekly Charlie Hebdo in Gay Paree on Wednesday.
Nevertheless, regrettably enough, some are still trying to contextualise the attack by bringing in the larger issue of provocation in matters of faith, Lion of Islam Islamists'' demonstrated tendency to resort to violence in such situations, and the marginalisation from the mainstream that Moslems in many countries feel despite being perfectly law-abiding.
Of these people, there is a simple question to be asked: in choosing to adopt such an abhorrent method of voicing their disapproval of the publications editorial choices, did the perpetrators of the attack do their religion and its 1.6 billion adherents any sort of positive service? Or have their actions poured yet more fuel on the fires of prejudice and fear that are lighting up in many parts of the West regarding the inherent ''otherness'' of Moslems?
Continued on Page 49
Posted by: Fred ||
01/09/2015 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[10 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Not at all surprising, many still deny “Arbeit Macht Frei,” Little difference in my book.
#2
was certainly not the will of the majority, and neither does it reflect their mindset.
Bull.
Read Chowdrey and tell me that the majority of Muslims don't cheer this, at least silently.
I didn't believe this way in the past but I have been forced to agree with the position that their are two types of Muslims: 1) The type that will kill you/all infidels; 2) The type that want type 1 to kill you.
Any one who isn't a type 1 or type 2 Muslim is not a Muslim but an apostate.
#3
The same media people who keep burying the ugly fact that the Nazis were Socialists, try desperately to separate terrorism (let alone several hundred years of military conquest) from Islam.
#4
One of the things to keep in mind is that Islamists are pretty much attempting to do what the U.S. minority group activists have done with some success: namely create a malleable victim class either by getting the entire group in on the blame, or by forcing a backlash, or by establishing a climate of "white guilt" with respect to Moslems. They're doing a pretty damn good job on the last one in the US and OK, methinks. IMNSHO, Choudry is no different than Al Sharpton or LaRaza, except in who's doing the funding.
The political elites are responding to the jihadists, and Moslem community by extension, in the same way that they've responded to other militant minority groups. It also pretty much explains why the Left seems to be falling all over themselves in supporting the jihadists.
#5
Sew each one of the ba$tards into a pig, entrails and all. Run each package through a wood chipper. Cremate the resulting slurry. Drop it in the ocean somewhere. Televise the whole thing.
Calling un spade un spade, from the Atlantic of all places...
[The Atlantic] ...We see a blue “Je Suis Charlie” sign on a lamppost. Very nice. But the sentiment is partially a conceit. We are not all Charlie. Much of Europe, which, as a political entity, is not fully grappling with the totalitarian madness of Islamism, is not Charlie. Charlie is, of course, racist. Ask Angela Merkel...
Certainly much of journalism is not Charlie. Any outlet that censors Charlie Hebdo cartoons out of fear of Islamist reprisal is not Charlie. To publish the cartoons now is a necessary, but only moderately brave, act. We may put Charlie up with Breitbart on the 'Burg. We don't have room for all the non-journalism martyrs to the Religion of Peace®, the untold and usually unnamed victims of the oil-financed expasion of Wahhabism...
Please remember: Even after Charlie Hebdo was firebombed in 2011, it continued to publish rude and funny satires mocking the essential ridiculousness of the Islamist worldview. That represented a genuine display of bravery. CNN, the Associated Press, and the many other media organizations that are cowering before the threat of totalitarian violence represent something other than bravery. I'd also suggest that turning out to protest the Islamicisation of Europe is also an act of bravery. Calling the people who do racists is not. Those turning out are met with "counter protesters," who're usually looking for a fight..
Here is someone who is not Charlie: Tony Barber, of the Financial Times, who wrote yesterday: “Charlie Hebdo has a long record of mocking, baiting and needling French Muslims. If the magazine stops just short of outright insults, it is nevertheless not the most convincing champion of the principle of freedom of speech. France is the land of Voltaire, but too often editorial foolishness has prevailed at Charlie Hebdo.” Principle is, of course, bunk. It is easy to satirize Christians. The last auto da fe was several hundred years ago. Bring it back and the number of urine-soaked crucifixes and Madonnas painted in dung will drop dramatically.
Editorial foolishness! If they shot people who criticized Charlie that number would drop dramatically, too....
He went on: “This is not in the slightest to condone the murderers, who must be caught and punished, "No, no! Certainly not!"...
or to suggest that freedom of expression should not extend to satirical portrayals of religion. "Certainly not! As long as they're not racist..."...
It is merely to say that some common sense would be useful at publications such as Charlie Hebdo, and Denmark’s Jyllands-Posten, which purport to strike a blow for freedom when they provoke Muslims, but are actually just being stupid.” "See? Nobody's even tried to kill me! I ain't so dumb."...
(Some of these lines have since been edited out of Barber's "expanded and updated" FT column without explanation.) "Don't criticize me, now! You know how badly that makes me feel!"...
Stupid is in the eye of the beholder. To me, it seems stupid and self-destructive to let men with guns tell us what we can or cannot write, or read. I guess backing down gets easier with practice. Or never stepping up....
Do you know who else isn’t Charlie? Barack Obama isn’t Charlie. This is from a speech the president delivered to the United Nations General Assembly in 2012:
The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam. But to be credible, those who condemn that slander must also condemn the hate we see in the images of Jesus Christ that are desecrated, or churches that are destroyed, or the Holocaust that is denied.
I wish President Obama had not said this, for a number of reasons, not the least of which is that the Holocaust is an historical fact, and church desecrations are physical crimes against property; neither vandalism nor the denial of historical reality compare to the mocking of unprovable religious beliefs. (And yes, I find attacks on the principles of my faith painful, but I would defend the right of people to make such attacks; I'm opposed, for instance, to the criminalization of Holocaust denial.) Feels a little uncomfortable, being in the same ideological corner, does it?...
Mainly, Obama’s statement is troubling because it should be the role of the president of the United States, who swears an oath to defend the Constitution, to explain to the world the principle that free speech is sacred—painful, sometimes, but sacred. If the future does not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam—in other words, to people who speak freely and offensively—then it belongs to those who would suppress by force any criticism of religion. This is not an American idea, and it certainly isn’t Charlie.
#1
Do you know who else isn’t Charlie? Barack Obama isn’t Charlie. This is from a speech the president delivered to the United Nations General Assembly in 2012: ....Spit !
A high drifter rode into Lago:
"Good burghers, please leggo my Eggo!
As we paint the town red,
I shall loaf and be fed,
Then retire and puff fat Don Diegos."
Posted by Zenobia Floger6220
A Zen tribute from late yesterday. I just had to see it one more time.
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
The many who lie here along the Hudson, killed in action in our nations conflicts might take exception to the claim of a "cheap education." 
