← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · Jack Cassidy
Thread ID: 16565 | Posts: 29 | Started: 2005-02-03
2005-02-03 18:22 | User Profile
[url="http://releases.usnewswire.com/redir.asp?ReleaseID=42512&Link=http://www.usnewswire.com/"][color=#0000ff]http://www.usnewswire.com/[/color][/url]
DeLay: Our Military Makes Our Academia Possible; House Votes to Protect Military Access to Higher Education 2/2/2005 3:39:00 PM
To: National Desk and Education Reporter
Contact: Dan Allen or Shannon Flaherty, 202-225-4000, both of the Office House Majority Leader Tom DeLay
WASHINGTON, Feb. 2 /U.S. Newswire/ -- House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Texas) today said elite colleges and universities that block our nation's military from recruiting their students should be denied federal funds, as the House of Representatives voted to support military recruiters having the same access to college campuses as other prospective employers.
"Every year, thousands upon thousands of businesses, industries, nonprofit groups, and even other colleges recruit underclassmen to sign up to become investment bankers or computer engineers or environmental lawyers or medical students," DeLay said. "And yet, some colleges -- principally the elitist and elite colleges -- refuse to even allow military recruiters on their campuses.
"Such policies are obnoxious in times of peace, but they are simply intolerable in times of war, and the equal access of our military recruiters to federally funded colleges and universities must be protected," DeLay added.
The House of Representatives voted on a resolution today showing Congress' continued commitment to U.S. military preparedness. It urges the executive branch to aggressively challenge any decision impeding or prohibiting Solomon's Law, which grants the secretary of defense power to deny federal funding to any college or university that prohibits or prevents ROTC or military recruitment on its campus. The resolution passed today by an overwhelming margin of 327-84.
"The opposition to the presence of veterans at their schools is not about academic freedom or civil liberties -- it's about them not liking the military, or the values our men and women in uniform represent. It's about many of them preferring the company of people who blame the United States for 9/11, who compare the World Trade Center victims to Nazis, to the company of a soldier or a sailor or an airman or a Marine.
"America in the future will no doubt need its brilliant businessmen, lawyers, and poets, but such genius will do us no good without brilliant admirals and generals to protect them," DeLay concluded.
[url="http://releases.usnewswire.com/redir.asp?ReleaseID=42512&Link=http://www.usnewswire.com/"][color=#0000ff][/color][/url]
2005-02-03 18:35 | User Profile
Damn! It's been a while since I agreed with DeLay on something.
2005-02-03 18:42 | User Profile
Yeah, and academia, at least the chemistry dept., makes the bug extermination business possible (DeLay was a bug exterminator before running for US Congress).
I think this kind of stupidity is the rule, not the exception, in blue-collar America. How often do we hear, "They are fighting to keep us safe", or, "We are only able to do this because the brave men and women in uniform", et al. Come on, I won't tell children that Santa Claus is a fiction and I won't counter the aforementioned mantras in public. But please, I really don't have anything to worry about because of men and women (mostly men) who didn't go in the military but studied hard in universities-- specifically, nuclear physics, aerospace engineering, and related fields. No country can ever be a threat to my freedom (only one can be a potential threat to my existence) because of thousands of nuclear weapons and advanced delivery systems. I heard some conservative call into a local conservative radio show talking about a great bumper sticker he saw, "My kid is serving in the U.S. military so your kid can party in college." Please, with all due respect, in today's world, we could get by without soldiers but we couldn't get by without college-educated people. In fact, your boy is safe in his turkey shoot over in Fallujah because some upper-class kid from elite schools went into materials engineering at Cornell or Cal Tech.
2005-02-03 18:51 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Sertorius]Damn! It's been a while since I agreed with DeLay on something.[/QUOTE] I can understand the intial impulse to agree, with images of some long-haired, ectomorph freak wearing a "Free Mumia Abul Jamal" t-shirt, sauntering contempuously past the Marine recruiter on his way to some ethnic studies class. But do we really need generals and admirals today to protect our life and freedom? Yes, we need them to conduct military policing type actions around the globe. But since the advent of the nuclear weapons and supersonic (hypersonic) missiles we will never again have WWII style conflicts that require generals and admirals.
2005-02-03 18:53 | User Profile
My point is this. Unless it is a private school that refuses federal funds a recruiter ought to be able to go on a campus without this nonsense of the school forbidding him. If someone doesn't want to join up so be it.
2005-02-03 18:56 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Jack Cassidy]But since the advent of the nuclear weapons and supersonic (hypersonic) missiles we will never again have WWII style conflicts that require generals and admirals.[/QUOTE]An extremely naive and ahistorical view. We have had such technology for many decades yet generals, admirals, armies, air forces, and navies have been used all that time. They continue to be used. There is no evidence whatsoever that they will ever be obsolete. But have fun in your little fantasy world.
2005-02-03 19:18 | User Profile
Jack,
[QUOTE]I can understand the intial impulse to agree, with images of some long-haired, ectomorph freak wearing a "Free Mumia Abul Jamal" t-shirt, sauntering contempuously past the Marine recruiter on his way to some ethnic studies class.[/QUOTE]
You must mean this ugly crowd.
[IMG]http://ancapistan.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/recruiter_chased.jpg[/IMG]
[QUOTE]Sgt. 1st Class Jeff Due, right, a U.S. Army recruiter, is surrounded by protesters at Seattle Central Community College, Thursday, Jan. 20, 2005, in Seattle. After about a 10-minute standoff during which protesters tore up U.S Army literature, the protesters were successful in getting Due and another recruiter to leave their table under escort by campus security officers. Several hundred students walked out of classes at several Seattle colleges and universities to protest the inauguration of President Bush. (AP Photo/Ted S. Warren)[/QUOTE]
Didn't see your follow up post, but on this:
[QUOTE]But do we really need generals and admirals today to protect our life and freedom?[/QUOTE]
For the moment forget about the present collection of idiots running things in D.C. The answer to your question is yes, we do need them. At the end of WW II people thought that the A-bomb would end conventional war. The civilian leadership thought that airpower would be decisive and skimped on the rest of the Armed Forces. Then Korea came along. The Army and the Marines intially went into combat with poorly maintained and/or mothballed equipment from WW II.
Like the poor, war will always be with us.
2005-02-03 20:06 | User Profile
Jack, I agree with some of your sentiments but disagree with your overall take on this.
I can fully understand bristling at the idiocy of "They are fighting to keep us safe" especially when it comes out of the mouth of one of those people convinced Saddam and Osama were partners on 9/11. But if that's knotheaded, so is "No country can ever be a threat to my freedom (only one can be a potential threat to my existence) because of thousands of nuclear weapons and advanced delivery systems", because the global social contract we have initiated and enforced is that These Terrible Weapons Must Never Be Used. And a good thing, too - if even a few nations-with-nukes got into the habit of lobbing them over the fence at each other, you'd end up with global Detroit, or, at the very least, very large uninhabitable areas all over the planet.
That means - even in that fantasy scenario of fighting a war out of actual self-defense, it's [I]always[/I] gonna be conventional forces, and thus generals and admirals - because the minute one side goes nuclear, [I]duck [/I] - all bets are off after that.
I think you've got to have military recruiters on campus because, prior to the Philip Agee era, it was neither "men and women who studied nuclear physics, aerospace engineering, and related fields in universities" nor the dogfaces but the [B]CIA [/B] who kept the wheels turning on the bus in quiet and sometimes-ruthless fashion, but you never see any [I]"My kid is snapping photos of a swarthy Third World finance minister with two naked boys so your kid can party in college"[/I] bumper stickers, do ya? We [I]as a nation[/I] need the military and intelligence sectors to have access to intelligent, dedicated young talent as much as any (yawwn) law firm does.
2005-02-04 01:26 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Sertorius]Jack,
You must mean this ugly crowd.
[/QUOTE] No, my objections don't translate into feeling simpatico with the crowd in the picture. If I had my way you'd be looking at a Kent State II.
2005-02-04 01:34 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Jack Cassidy]No, my objections don't translate into feeling simpatico with the crowd in the picture. If I had my way you'd be looking at a Kent State II.[/QUOTE]
My feelings exactly, Jack. With the students holding the guns. It would be fun to kill every ****ing one of the bastards that shot students that day.
2005-02-04 01:42 | User Profile
[QUOTE=il ragno]Jack, I agree with some of your sentiments but disagree with your overall take on this.
I can fully understand bristling at the idiocy of "They are fighting to keep us safe" especially when it comes out of the mouth of one of those people convinced Saddam and Osama were partners on 9/11. But if that's knotheaded, so is "No country can ever be a threat to my freedom (only one can be a potential threat to my existence) because of thousands of nuclear weapons and advanced delivery systems", because the global social contract we have initiated and enforced is that These Terrible Weapons Must Never Be Used. And a good thing, too - if even a few nations-with-nukes got into the habit of lobbing them over the fence at each other, you'd end up with global Detroit, or, at the very least, very large uninhabitable areas all over the planet.
That means - even in that fantasy scenario of fighting a war out of actual self-defense, it's always gonna be conventional forces, and thus generals and admirals - because the minute one side goes nuclear, duck - all bets are off after that.
I think you've got to have military recruiters on campus because, prior to the Philip Agee era, it was neither "men and women who studied nuclear physics, aerospace engineering, and related fields in universities" nor the dogfaces but the CIA who kept the wheels turning on the bus in quiet and sometimes-ruthless fashion, but you never see any "My kid is snapping photos of a swarthy Third World finance minister with two naked boys so your kid can party in college" bumper stickers, do ya? We as a nation need the military and intelligence sectors to have access to intelligent, dedicated young talent as much as any (yawwn) law firm does.[/QUOTE]I would agree with this sentiment if I didn't now believe that Shadow Warriors and civilian intelligence operatives are working in the interests of things which have degrees of separation from me, as an ordinary American. Too bad I'm not a Ukrainian oil oligarch. Too bad I didn't sell my summer vacation home in the Catskills in order to buy a condo in Tel Aviv.
2005-02-04 02:09 | User Profile
Jack,
I understood what you meant. When I read that sentence I thought about that photo. The fools there are every bit as bad as the "professional patroit" crowd one hears on Fox and talk radio.
2005-02-04 02:31 | User Profile
At this point, anything that impedes the military machine is a good thing, so DeLay's measure is detrimental to the non-interventionist cause that many paleoconservatives and adherents of the Authentic Right support. I hope recruiting stays down and goes lower, because that's one of the final real-world constraints on the ability of the Regime in DC to wage these endless wars across the globe. Bush has proven with his Inaugural Speech that there's no philosophical constraints, so now all there is to hope for is that the finite supply of money and men puts the brakes on things.
2005-02-04 03:53 | User Profile
Careful; when Bushwar is over we're going to be surrounded by enemies, all of whom now [B]know [/B] that flexible, improvised guerrilla warfare is the way to go when toppling a leviathan. Reliable intelligence, and lots of freshly-recruited "cannon fodder", may come in handier than you think.
2005-02-04 05:00 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Jack Cassidy]... WASHINGTON, Feb. 2 /U.S. Newswire/ -- House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Texas) today said elite colleges and universities that block our nation's military from recruiting their students should be denied federal funds...[/QUOTE] If the beltway bureaucrats are so interested in maintaining military enlistment levels and having equal access to college campuses... perhaps they should consider "cleaning-up their act." Every conflict the U.S. has entered since WWII has produced an abundance of neglected and mistreated War Veterans. The government's record of mistreating and neglecting American War Veterans is absolutely appalling... and Americans know it.
Furthermore, there isn't one war that America has entered into in the last century that hasn't had questionable motivation behind it. In fact... all political rhetoric aside... an honest analysis of the various conflicts has a consistent residue of economic interest in addition to benefiting a certain tribe that prefers Kosher food.
The beltway boys love to utilize American Military might to further their questionable interests... but they don't wish to deal with the consequences of their actions.
I applaud the "elite colleges and universities that block our nation's military from recruiting." Tom DeLay and his irresponsible colleagues need to remember that going to war is only a last resort to protect one's homeland from dangerous enemies. War is not to be used as a routine procedure to promote economic or political gain.
:cool:
2005-02-04 12:03 | User Profile
I can understand your sentiments, but "applaud" is the last thing I would do. Whether it is the administrators or the so-called "students", such as the ones in that photo above, they have about as much use for "Christian Nationalists" as they do recruiters and are every bit as bad as the Neocons.
2005-02-05 07:22 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Sertorius]I can understand your sentiments, but "applaud" is the last thing I would do. Whether it is the administrators or the so-called "students", such as the ones in that photo above, they have about as much use for "Christian Nationalists" as they do recruiters and are every bit as bad as the Neocons.[/QUOTE] Point taken Sertorius... at least in regard to the administrators.
But the students "know not what they do."
:wink:
2005-02-05 09:30 | User Profile
SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER [url]http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/210741_protest04.html[/url]
Anti-war group targets on-campus military recruiters Friday, February 4, 2005
By JAKE ELLISON SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER REPORTER
A mob of Seattle Central Community College students chased military recruiters off campus last month, after a tense confrontation. Now a student anti-war group is stepping up efforts to keep them out for good.
Students Against War has launched a petition drive aimed at persuading administrators to order a halt to on-campus military recruiting.
The group points to a November ruling by the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. The Philadelphia-based court held that a college opposed to the policy barring gays and lesbians in the armed forces has a First Amendment right to protest by blocking access to military recruiters.
Central students opposed to the war in Iraq have been fighting the presence of military recruiters all year. The group organized a protest to coincide with President Bush's inauguration Jan. 20, but it started sooner than scheduled when several hundred students surrounded two Army recruiters.
The students hurled insults and water bottles, according to witnesses, forcing the recruiters to flee under the protection of campus security officers. There were no reports of injuries.
Administrators initially threatened to take disciplinary action against Students Against War, which denied any responsibility for the incident.
Yesterday, however, officials backed off their demand that the group apologize to the recruiters or be stripped of their affiliation with the college.
Central President Mildred Ollee said she dropped the ultimatum after discovering that members of other student groups were involved in the confrontation.
"I'm not prepared to go on a witch hunt," she said. "We did the best we could do in this, and I believe the students have learned something and we're going to move forward."
Leaders of the anti-war group told a small crowd of students yesterday that they intend to press for the military recruiting ban.
"We do not want the military in our schools asking our friends and family to fight for a war that is wrong," Nicole Thomas said. "We want recruiters out of our schools."
The incident was captured in a newspaper photograph that has made its way into conservative Web blogs. That spurred a wave of e-mails to Central administrators denouncing the conduct of the students.
One of the recruiters involved in the confrontation, Sgt. Jeffrey Due, said he was stunned how quickly things got out of hand. "I was in outright shock that they were protesting me," he said.
Due had been warned about the student walk-out demonstration, but said he didn't expect that kind of trouble. "They were all going by making off-hand comments and saying 'no war.' We just waved at them," Due said. "Five minutes later, there was just a mob of 500 people surrounding the table."
Due said he was hit in the head with newspapers, and water bottles whizzed by, pounding the vending machine and wall behind him.
The flap has energized Central's anti-war effort, sparking the petition drive. The group's goal is to get recruiters off campus "by legal means," said spokesman Gerald Lisi.
He argued that the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy is in conflict with the college's code barring discrimination on campus. While petitions circulate, the group is consulting with attorneys and researching the issue.
But Ollee pointed to a government rule that allows federal money to be withheld from any college that refuses to give military recruiters access to students and student-contact information.
"I am under the law and will comply with the law as long as it is the law," she said.
P-I reporter Jake Ellison can be reached at 206-448-8346 or [email]jakeellison@seattlepi.com[/email]
é 1998-2005 Seattle Post-Intelligencer
2005-02-06 03:13 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Sertorius]... Anti-war group targets on-campus military recruiters Friday, February 4, 2005 ... "We do not want the military in our schools asking our friends and family to fight for a war that is wrong," Nicole Thomas said. "We want recruiters out of our schools." there was just a mob of 500 people surrounding the table." ... He argued that the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy is in conflict with the college's code barring discrimination on campus. While petitions circulate, the group is consulting with attorneys and researching the issue. ...[/QUOTE] This is just the beginning Sertorius. The longer the War lasts... the worse it will become.
Although I must admit... I didn't expect the "gay rights" angle.
:cool:
2005-02-06 15:52 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Phantasm]This is just the beginning Sertorius. The longer the War lasts... the worse it will become.
Although I must admit... I didn't expect the "gay rights" angle.
:cool:[/QUOTE]
Once in a while, the Left takes good positions on an issue, but for stupid reasons. Hence, they're standing in the way of the Empire's war machine, but because of their commitment to touchy-feely pacifism and their desire to see the military used for radical social experimentation, as you mention above.
The Left does the same thing with the "free trade" issue--they're against "free trade" because they feel sorry for the Hondurans who are making a few pennies an hour making American sneakers in the sweatshops overseas, or because those countries don't have high environmental protection standards, and not because they care about maintaining American jobs in themselves or protecting our national economic independence.
This tendency can work to the advantage of the Authentic Right--it helps to frame the outcome we want to see on issues in terms the Left understands. For example, you'll be more likely to get a Leftist to agree to immigration restrictionism if you emphasize how immigration negatively affects the environment and exacerbates overpopulation. The Sierra Club continues to debate this issue in its membership magazine, although the Jews who, as usual, infiltrated the group have made sure that the "official" direction of the publications of that organization is on the side of open borders. Still, there's quite a few environmentalists out there who are immigration restrictionists, otherwise the Sierra Club wouldn't see a need to publish articles "exploring" the debate.
2005-02-06 16:12 | User Profile
Phantasm,
That's the point I was trying to make about those people. They are not friends. They are a collection of Leftists who not only dislike the Armed Forces, but the Republic as well. I have absolutely no use for this war for my fear is that it will lead to the situation we had in the late '70s. That situation resulted in a wrecked force. That wasn't a good time to be on active duty nor was it good for the nation. The sort of conduct I see in that photo is part of what screwed up the military. Instead of attacking the recruiters they would do better to raise hell with their Congressmen like I do.
I have no use for those so-called protesters. If they weren't complaining about this, they would be raising hell about say, capital punishment or gay marriage. Paleocon Avatar has summed my thinking quite well.
2005-02-07 17:45 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Sertorius]Phantasm,
That's the point I was trying to make about those people. They are not friends. ... I have no use for those so-called protesters. If they weren't complaining about this, they would be raising hell about say, capital punishment or gay marriage. Paleocon Avatar has summed my thinking quite well.[/QUOTE] I agree that these students are a bunch of spoiled brats who will find something to protest about... regardless. However, I'm reluctant to find fault will them for this current situation. The students are pretty mindless as far as the real world is concerned... they only wish to believe that they're standing for something. In contrast... the beltway boys know exactly what this is about. Our representatives took an oath of office which they routinely violate with careless disregard. As long as they can keep their benefactors happy and hang on to their pathetic "do-nothing" jobs... they'll be happy as clams. If they can pocket a few extra bucks on one of their "side deals..." even better. They are the ones I hold responsible.
The protests are getting media attention and that means that the beltway bureaucrats will take notice as well. It will be interesting to see how long America tolerates this little escapade in Iraq... and if our countrymen will endorse the destruction of Israel's other enemies.
:wink:
2005-02-07 20:22 | User Profile
[QUOTE=PaleoconAvatar]At this point, anything that impedes the military machine is a good thing, so DeLay's measure is detrimental to the non-interventionist cause that many paleoconservatives and adherents of the Authentic Right support. .[/QUOTE]
I would put it differently: "At this point, whatever fans the flames of discontent is a good thing." The goal is a general collapse of the Empire. That means stuff like civilians hating military, and vice versa.
We need a big war with Iran and Syria, combined with a military draft. This will increase the sheeple's pain even as it gives them a clear target for their mindless outrage. That in turn will make the elites despise the civilian sheeple with ever increasing fury, tempting them to raise their hand openly against the the sheeple. That in turn will feed sheeple anger and so on feeding on itself like a tornado being born of a great thunder storm.
Maybe.
Rumsfeld said recently he's going to disappoint me and not go to war with Iran, but hope springs eternal in the human breast as they say.
Walter
2005-02-07 20:52 | User Profile
[QUOTE=PaleoconAvatar]At this point, anything that impedes the military machine is a good thing, so DeLay's measure is detrimental to the non-interventionist cause that many paleoconservatives and adherents of the Authentic Right support. I hope recruiting stays down and goes lower, because that's one of the final real-world constraints on the ability of the Regime in DC to wage these endless wars across the globe. Bush has proven with his Inaugural Speech that there's no philosophical constraints, so now all there is to hope for is that the finite supply of money and men puts the brakes on things.[/QUOTE] Great post. My sentiments exactly.:thumbsup:
2005-02-07 21:15 | User Profile
Walter, how are you going to provoke the Iranians into launching a Tet-scale offensive across the border into Iraq?
Because, until that happens, there's [B]no way[/B] the US is going to war with Iran
2005-02-07 21:17 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Walter Yannis]We need a big war with Iran and Syria, combined with a military draft. This will increase the sheeple's pain even as it gives them a clear target for their mindless outrage. That in turn will make the elites despise the civilian sheeple with ever increasing fury, tempting them to raise their hand openly against the the sheeple. That in turn will feed sheeple anger and so on feeding on itself like a tornado being born of a great thunder storm.
Maybe.
Rumsfeld said recently he's going to disappoint me and not go to war with Iran, but hope springs eternal in the human breast as they say.
Walter[/QUOTE]I may not be understanding this "clear target" that you speak of. Since this "outrage" is, as your correctly say mindless, because these people are so easily manipulated, is that "outrage" EVER going to be directed at the people it should be(the "elites, of which you speak) with their draft that are sending people into their phony Zioinist/money making "adventures" to die, or are they going to be able to continue to take the sheeple's anger and effectively direct it at the people,"the terrorists.etc, they are supposedly at "battle with"? They seem to be doing pretty good job of this, though things could possibly take a dramatic turn with a draft, unless of course there is another large scale "terrorist attack" inside the united states.:wink:
2005-02-08 04:44 | User Profile
[QUOTE=mmartins]Walter, how are you going to provoke the Iranians into launching a Tet-scale offensive across the border into Iraq?
Because, until that happens, there's [B]no way[/B] the US is going to war with Iran[/QUOTE]
Well, a guy can always hope.
Israel must be pushing the idea very hard now. If the Mullahs get the bomb, the entire conversation in the Middle East will be changed forever. No more Izzy monopoly on Doomsday.
It's more than possible, IMHO. Not probable, but certainly it's one way this could foreseeably shake out.
2005-02-08 06:55 | User Profile
[QUOTE=PaleoconAvatar]Once in a while, the Left takes good positions on an issue, but for stupid reasons. ... This tendency can work to the advantage of the Authentic Right--it helps to frame the outcome we want to see on issues in terms the Left understands. For example, you'll be more likely to get a Leftist to agree to immigration restrictionism if you emphasize how immigration negatively affects the environment and exacerbates overpopulation. ...[/QUOTE] Yeah... you're right... this IS part of effective posturing and argumentation. I just feel a little uneasy about having to frame the outcome on issues in terms that the other side finds appealing while setting aside the "valid" components of the issue. I guess in a perfect world we could reason with mature adults and get them to see our side of an issue for the right reasons. Unfortunately, most of these people will not change... so effective posturing and communication is the key.
Just as long as we don't get lost in the maze...
:thumbsup:
2005-02-08 13:50 | User Profile
Walter,
Yesterday, the [I]Wall Street Journal[/I] had an editorial calling for attacking Syria. It would appear that the split on what nation to attack next is still going on with these fools.
I think that any resistance to more neocon stupidity is due to the vulnerability of the dollar and opposition from the military itself.