Some thoughts about the supposed “highly educated voters” who the media told us voted for John Kerry, and are voting (and will vote for) Barack Obama:
I invited the applicants for interviews. These PMI wannabes came off as slick and somewhat rude. I noted something among my subjects, a sense of entitlement, they all, to varying degrees, emitted a message along the lines of “Why are you bothering me with this silly interview? I am obviously brilliant. I have a degree from Columbia. I am not going to spend my whole life as you have in this stupid bureaucracy. I just need this to add to my resume. I am in a hurry.”
I have two bachelors degrees and a masters. Am I highly educated? Well, I’m sufficiently educated not to let Obama pull the wool over my eyes.
Come to think of it, Obama seems to be in a hurry as well.
The Diplomad: Every time you hear that phrase, “highly educated” substitute the phrase “attended a lame liberal college or university.”
It’s a good thing that McCain is against that new GI bill. They’re better off not going to college anyway.
Tbe more appropriate term for your typical Obama voter is “educated beyond their intellegence.”
It’s a good thing that McCain is against that new GI bill. They’re better off not going to college anyway.
From the Department of Defense’s point of view, too good a tuition package encourages people to leave after three years. The US military needs career soldiers.
Well, I wouldn’t boast about attracting “highly educated” people. Surely it’s obvious that past a certain point — certainly past a bachelor’s degree — more education makes you more specialized, and probably by atrophication your generalized competence decreases. We can all think of professors who can quote Proust at length or solve really hair differential equations, but who are reduced to eating canned soup when the wife is on vacation and who would cut their own foot off if asked to mow the lawn themselves.
Since choosing a good President is a sign of general “School o’ Life” competence, you don’t want to be the choice of all those people who are so highly trained that they can only be let outside with proper chaperonage.
(No, I’m not being envious. I have a BS from MIT and a PhD from Berkely, myself. I know these people.)
“Obama seems to be in a hurry as well”
Yeah, to get elected before too many people twig to what he really is. If that happens, he doesn’t stand a chance.
Karl nailed it, in a fashion.
The good people I’ve known in the military that separated typically left because they couldn’t deal with the idiotic bureaucracy anymore, felt they weren’t being utilized properly, or they werent’ being offered a chance at a military career.
My (limited) experience has shown me the larger problem wasn’t that the good tuition packages encouraged good people to leave earlier, it was that they helped recruit those that otherwise had no love for the military in the first place. People the military would be better off without.
I’ve met officers that felt they were entitled to a taxpayer provided university education, whose only ‘unfortunate’ recourse was to join the military to take it. I’ve met self avowed socialists in our military who proselytize against the U.S., our foreign policy, our form of government, our founding principles, etc.
We currently have people ‘serving’ in our military who swear an Oath to support, defend, and bear true faith and allegiance to our Constitution, who do so freely but with incredible mental reservations and intentions of evading as much actual service as possible. To them, ‘service’ in the armed forces is only about claiming what they are ‘owed’.
Love of Liberty is obviously not a necessary condition for service in our armed forces… But I think it would be nice if we could construct active duty and veterans entitlement programs in such a way that those who do not hold America in positive esteem are less encouraged to join the service.
I think reducing veterans education benefits could help to that end. I would rather see that money spent on the education of Active Duty members (I am no longer active duty just to be clear). The military would benefit, and the taxpayers would likely benefit more from the investment as well.
So Mr. Harris: “Oh! look at him! He wants to throw our service members under the bus!” [paraphrasing], I understand your intense need for demagoguery, but there can be good military serving reasons for wanting to change our entitlement programs for members of our armed services.
Note: I am not at all jumping to John McCain’s defense.
I understand your intense need for demagoguery, but there can be good military serving reasons for wanting to change our entitlement programs for members of our armed services.
If college is lame anyway, where’s the demagoguery? The way you put it, the military is for patriots, while college is for opportunists and leftists. Why even offer it for people on active duty? The GI bill does require past active duty for eligibility, but even so.
From the Department of Defense’s point of view, too good tuition package encourages people to leave after three years.
I don’t doubt that that is the Pentagon’s point of view. Coddle our soldiers too much and they won’t keep fighting. The voters have a slightly different point of view.
But again, maybe the voters are wrong about college scholarships, if college is a lame leftist backwater.
I have a $100 I will donate to charity when Jim makes one effective argument I.E. avoids a strawman fallacy.
Mike, does Jim’s argument have to be made after you posted this generous offer? I’m only asking because I think Jim was spot-on in the recent “practice what you preach” thread. In general, I think the liberals won that thread!
The military should ditch education benefits altogether and offer cash bonuses and accelerated promotion for higher ASVAB scores. Better a smart 19 year old lieutenant with a high school diploma then a dumb twentysomething lieutenant with a BA in theatre. (Before you ask, the latter example is a real person.)
Hmmmmm.
1. All members of the US military are greatly encouraged to engage in higher learning courses and degree programs. It was primarily the US military that created the online and distance learning techniques, technology and infrastructure that we have today. The military also comprises the single biggest block of students for these programs.
2. Promotion to higher ranks requires participation in higher learning. If you’re trying to get promoted past E-5 then you need every last bit of help doing so and a good education will help. Particularly good grades in a degree program or a degree itself.
3. If you’re thinking of becoming a federal civil servant after leaving the military then you definitely need a degree to get ahead as the federal service restricts how far you can go depending on what degrees you have.
4. “It’s a good thing that McCain is against that new GI bill. They’re better off not going to college anyway.”
I haven’t heard any details of the new GI Bill. But considering that the cosponsors are Obama and Hillary I can guess that it’s larded up with pork and is designed to deflect any accusations of either of them “not supporting the troops”.
From past experience it’s pretty obvious that they’d come out with something like this. Because liberal Democrats go to extreme lengths to build up their national defense and “I love soldiers” cred because otherwise they’d never have any. Their normal actions and attitudes are a dead giveaway.
I’m sure as the details come out I’ll find many things to abhor in this bill. But if Mr. Harris is so keen on it, then I suggest he present the bill in it’s entirety for debate.
memomachine: Promotion to higher ranks requires participation in higher learning.
If the military takes higher learning to mean enrollment in some lame college, then they could be shooting themselves in the foot with that requirement. That is, yes, a good education should help, but what’s a good education? Classes from Ward Churchill, or combat experience?
If you’re thinking of becoming a federal civil servant after leaving the military
People have been saying that what they really want is soldiers who will leave the military. For that matter, what’s so important about promotion to higher rank. That doesn’t sound very selfless, does it?
But considering that the cosponsors are Obama and Hillary
That’s counterfactual. Obama and Clinton are cosponsors, but they aren’t “the” cosponsors. The bill has 57 Senate cosponsors. It was introduced by Webb and the main cosponsors are Warner and Lautenberg.
I can guess that it’s larded up with pork
That’s a very knowledgeable criticism. Are McCain and Bush perhaps shooting themselves in the foot by giving entirely different reasons to oppose this bill?
I suggest he present the bill in it’s entirety for debate.
I don’t know if you’ve heard, there is a miraculous new knowledge tool for finding things out. It’s called a “search engine”. It can find this page for you. On that page there is a lot of useful info. There is a link that says “…more” and then there is a link that says “See Full Bill Text”.
People have been saying that what they really want is soldiers who will leave the military.
Sorry, that should have been, who will never leave the military.
The measure “Highly Educated” refers to having a Bachelors
or masters. If you look at the Bush voters in 2004
many of them were high school dropouts, GED recipients
or college dropouts.
While there are many ignorant Bachelors recipients
you would be amazed at the level of ignorance of a
high school dropout.
I say that Carl Pham’s post at May 23, 2008 1:49 PM hit the nail on the head. The more specialized ones education is, the less his generalized knowledge is.