BCT Editorial – 2/19/07

This page was last updated on February 21, 2007.

Those who don’t serve; Editorial; Beaver County Times; February 19, 2007.

Below is a detailed critique of the subject editorial.

“Whether they supported or opposed a nonbinding resolution expressing opposition to President Bush’s troop build-up in Iraq, members of the U.S. House of Representatives stressed that they backed the troops, no matter which way they voted.

“While this highly partisan but troop-supporting debate was taking place, the nation learned that more recruits with criminal records, including felony convictions, are being granted waivers so they can join the Army or Marines.”

[RWC] In case you were interested in the actual figures, the felony waivers for the Army increased from 411 in 2003 to 901 in 2006. You can guess why the editorial didn’t provide this information.

“The hypocrisy on the part of the lawmakers cannot be ignored. One reason the Army and Marine Corps are having trouble filling their ranks is that the ruling class, which includes members of Congress and the executive branch and their families, have gone AWOL when it comes to serving in the U.S. military.”

[RWC] “[R]uling class?” Did you ever notice how liberals always feel the need to put people in classes?

“Kathy Roth-Douquet and Frank Schaeffer detail this split in ‘AWOL: The Unexcused Absence of America’s Upper Classes from Military Service - and How It Hurts Our Country.’

“The two write that since the United States has gone to an all-volunteer military, ‘it has become increasingly comfortable for most young adults of all social classes to avoid even thinking about military service.’

“Roth-Douquet and Schaeffer hone in on the upper classes. ‘Though post-Vietnam it is common for people in positions of influence to publicly praise the people who serve, there is evidence that of all segments of society, the leadership class has the least esteem for the military,’ they wrote. ‘Perhaps this is because of all Americans they have the fewest personal connections to the military.’”

[RWC] Where’s the so-called evidence and how does it vary according to economic, political, and social beliefs?

“Congress and the Bush White House illustrate this perfectly. Less than 1 percent of the 535 members of the House and Senate have immediate family members serving in the military, and you’d have to search long and hard in the upper ranks of the Bush administration to find someone who has a family member in the military.”

[RWC] Before this paragraph fools you, consider that only about 0.5% (about 1.5 million out of 300 million) of the population is in the military. Therefore, even if the “less than 1%” statistic is correct, it’s still in line with the population as a whole. That’s why nowhere in this editorial rate do you see a figure for those not in the Times “ruling class.”

“The same could be said of the nation’s leading corporations, law firms, media outlets and other members of the ruling class.

“Which leads Roth-Douquet and Schaeffer to raise a troubling point regarding ‘the sense of community and the threat to democracy that results when a society accepts a situation that is inherently unfair. When those who benefit most from living in a country contribute the least to its defense and those who benefit the least are asked to pay the ultimate price, something happens to the soul of that country.’”

[RWC] Apparently the editorial considers only monetary reward to be a benefit. The freedoms enjoyed by every American don’t count. It never occurs to the Times that people who are more economically successful actually earn that success. It’s a typical liberal belief that the economically successful simply are “lucky in life’s lottery.”

“An Associated Press story on the waivers being handed out noted that ‘lawmakers and other observers say they are concerned that the struggle to fill the military ranks in this time of war has forced the services to lower their moral standards.’

[RWC] Note that AP stories – just as most so-called “news” stories – are little more than opinion pieces.

“How about the moral standards of a ruling class that has abdicated its responsibilities when it comes to serving in the military?

“Might not the two go together?”

[RWC] Using the editorial definition of “ruling class,” let’s look at that “moral standards” question. Is it moral to force the top 5% income earners to pay over 54% of taxes? Why isn’t that “inherently unfair?”