Fark It:

Can you find the actual study? If you can't even find where it is but feel the need to defend it because one of your hunky male-anchors on Fox News parroted it on his show, then you're an idiot and it doesn't matter if Sean Hannity wrote the study while on a meth-bender.

Lemme make sure I understand this:

1. Citing no studies or data of any kind, anti-war politicians claim military attracts only the disenfranchised, the poor and/or minorities:

No problem.

2. In reponse, the military, US Census Bureau, Heritage Foundation and a brazillion or so other politicians and journalists cite numerous studies and surveys suggesting politicians in No. 1 are wrong:

ZOMG!!1!! Partisan data cherry-picking! Quick--shoot the messenger!

That about right?

Fark It: What information do you have that I don't?

At this point, having an article mentioning a Heritage Foundation study is already far more data than Kerry et al are citing.

But here you go:

http://www.heritage.org/Research/NationalSecurity/cda06-09.cfm

As promised, the actual report is based on Census data, has carefully documented methodology and cites for all numbers.

But hey--it's the Heritage Foundation as quoted by Fox, so we can't believe any of it. Much easier to trust John Kerry speaking with no cites or proof at all, right?

Shut........UP:

I never anyone raise the "proof" issue whenever a democrat spreads the cherished myth that the army is made of poor, uneducated, minorities.

What?!?!?!?!!!!? Only a Swift-Boater would dare ask Kerry to PROVE what he says!

Code_Archeologist: If I get some time I will try to expound on this critique further.

Here's a whacky idea: Before you attempt to nitpick this report, why not spend some time analyzing the report Kerry's quoting when he says the military attracts only the uneducated, poor or disenfranchised?

Surely he wouldn't say something like that without ample proof. I'm sure there must be an equally comprehensive, meticulous report supporting Kerry's statements out there somewhere....

Code_Archeologist:

Thanks The CraneMeister I am pouring through it now... this might take a while (ie. come back tomorrow).

Snarkiness aside, nice to see someone actually willing to look at the data instead of dismissing it just because Fox quoted it. Good on you.

elchip: And for the record, John Kerry has never publicly said that our military is stupid.

"During a Vietnam-era run for Congress three decades ago, John Kerry said he opposed a volunteer Army because it would be dominated by the underprivileged, be less accountable and be more prone to "the perpetuation of war crimes."

...In 1972, as he ran for the House, he was less apologetic in his comments about the merits of a volunteer army. He declared in the questionnaire that he opposed the draft but considered a volunteer army "a greater anathema."

"I am convinced a volunteer army would be an army of the poor and the black and the brown," Kerry wrote. "We must not repeat the travesty of the inequities present during Vietnam. I also fear having a professional army that views the perpetuation of war crimes as simply 'doing its job.'

http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2006/11/02/kerrys_72_c ampaign_comments_on_army_mirror_latest_flap/

Left unanswered is the question of why we're assuming military service is a bad thing in the first place.

But hye--if "sort of true" is good enough for you, rock on.

elchip:

I'm saying it's truer than statements that military service is some sort of great equalizer among the different races and economic classes.

Really? The report you just linked to says--on the cover--that more women and minorities are benefiting from short-term careers in the military than ever before.

And you still haven't answered the question of why we're assuming there's something inherently bad about serving in the military.

elchip: that quote never says they are stupid

No, just that they're uneducated and easily duped into criminal activity.

Can't have it both ways, Kerry. He's afraid of an all-volunteer military; he doesn't want a professional military either.

elchip: I can only assume he was referring to the bad shiat we did in Vietnam.

I suspect he was referring to his own claim, in his Senate hearings, that war crimes were being committed by the American military every day, at all levels of command, with full knowledge and support of military leaders, all over Vietnam.

Not that he was engaging in hyperbole or anything.

elchip:

you still haven't answered the question of why we're assuming there's something inherently bad about serving in the military.

Who's saying it is?

If it's not, then why would it matter if minorities or the poor were overrepresented? OTOH, if there was anything GOOD about military service, you'd think it would be a good thing for the poor, uneducated or minorities to get a crack at it.

Here's a little thought experiment: How does it sound if you replace "military recruits" with other things?

"The poor, uneducated and minorities are overrepresented in the top 5 percent of wealthy Americans."

"The poor, uneducated and minorities are overrepresented in Microsoft shareholders."

"The poor, uneducated and minorities are overrepresented in professional athletics."

If military service was viewed as a good, or at least neutral, thing by these folks, they wouldn't talk about it the same way they do, say, the prison population.

elchip:

Yeah, it was certainly hyperbolic. Which I don't think is the adjective describing something that's a hyperbole, but whatever.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/hyperbolic

hy‧per‧bol‧ic

-adjective
1.having the nature of hyperbole; exaggerated.
2.using hyperbole; exaggerating.
3.Mathematics.
a.of or pertaining to a hyperbola.
b.derived from a hyperbola, as a hyperbolic function.

Also, hy‧per‧bol‧i‧cal.

/recovering grammar Nazi

elchip:

I assume it's because they view the (somewhat-poorer than average) military as being sent off to die for things that, in some cases, benefit primarily the rich.

Even bigger assumption, if you ask me.

schief2: Two people debunk the study

Really? I was under the impression two people wondered if it was valid to use ZIP codes--which a debunking does not make.

so The CraneMeister cooly ducks into an attack on something Kerry said THIRTY FIVE YEARS AGO

In response to the contention that he never criticized the troops.

Never is a long time.

BTW--I was under the impression that Bush's alleged AWOL was more than 30 years ago as well. Are you saying it doesn't matter?

Karl Rove? Is that you?

Ya caught me. TF forums are one of the prime battlefields in American politics, you know.

WizardX: inquire as to whether the study's definition of "average" is the MEAN or the MEDIAN

What does the Interstate have to do with anything?

WizardX:

why did the Army have to LOWER its intelligence standards just to make its recruitment goals last year?

Eeermmm.... not quite what happened. In fact, I daresay you have radically misreprented the facts.

1. Until last year the DD allowed no more than 2 percent of recruits to have low aptitude scores.

2. Last year they bumped that to 3.5 percent to get about 2,600 more recruits to get in for a total of 80,635.

3. Which was 7,000 more than the previous year. Which means they still would have had 78,000 new recruits without changing the percentages.

4. These recruits all still had high school diplomas.

5. And most important: Lowering the aptitude requirement did not lure in more new recruits--it simply allowed the military to go ahead and enlist STUDENTS WHO ALREADY WANTED IN, but were being turned away.

Cite:

http://www.abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=2547754

The CraneMeister:

Last year they bumped that to 3.5 percent to get about 2,600 more recruits to get in for a total of 80,635.

My bad: I glanced at the wrong figure when typing this. They actually increased it to 4 percent.

PatMcCroch:

A highschool diploma is very very easy to get these days and shouldn't mean they are "educated".

So it's also the military's fault that our public schools suck?

WizardX:

it would logically follow that lowering the standards would result in admitting people who wanted in but would otherwise be turned away

Why? Couldn't it just as easily be true that they did it to attract people who otherwise wouldn't be interested?

And I don't agree that they "lowered the standards." They were already letting in some recruits with scores at that level; they simply let in more. They did not lower the level itself.