From the Michael Moore homepage

[Martin Aigner]

Firt I have to admit that I like this guy. I know that I will probably be flamed by 95% of the posters here, but so what. I have read "stupid whit men" and by its first 50 pages I have was so emotionally troubled like I never was before by a book.

Anyway, the whole disaster of the election and the personal enrichemnts of the heads of the USA would be another topic. But what I am really curious about is what you think of this fact:

"Of the 535 members of Congress, only ONE (Sen. Johnson of South Dakota) has an enlisted son or daughter in the armed forces! If you really want to stand up for America, please send your twin daughters over to Kuwait right now and let them don their chemical warfare suits. And let's see every member of Congress with a child of military age also sacrifice their kids for this war effort. What's that you say? You don't THINK so? Well, hey, guess what -- we don't think so either! "

This shouldn´t be about pro/contra the war, I´m just curious how somebody in the USA fells about this, esp. if he/she has some relative/friend fighting over there.

Regards

Martin Aigner

[Clarkmeister]

That ratio of families:families with sons/daughters Iraq is pretty close to the ratio of the general populace. I don't see any real point.

[nicky g]

If you check the number of them with financial or business ties to companies that'll profit from Iraqi bombing, oil or reconstruction, I doubt it's close to the ratio in the general popluation.

[Clarkmeister]

Of course its not. Thats because politicians in general at that level are significantly wealthier than average families. That level of wealth necessarily equates to strong buisiness ties of some sort.

[Martin Aigner]

Sorry, Clarkmeister, I don´t buy this one. Even if the ratio is the about the same, I bet there are some other sons/daughters of Congressmembers who have made some career in the Army. Maybe I´m wrong, but I always thought that for instance West Point is some sort of education of the upper class.

Martin Aigner

[Clarkmeister]

I think you are confusing West Point with Harvard. /forums/images/icons/smirk.gif

I'm against the war, but I really think this one is much ado about nothing. You'd have to provide proof of irregularities such as last minute transfers out of Iraq bound divisions to make a case. A mere quote from a very biased source isn't sufficient to prove anything nefarious. Especially when the best that that biased source can do is to tell us exactly what statistics would have us expect.

[nicky g]

Maybe, but it's still going to affect their outlook. Isn't it a poor system that throws up a rich, tied-to-business set of people's representatives? (Sorry, moving into a different argument her).

[Clarkmeister]

Well, I'm no political expert, but there are two factors that I can think of off the top of my head.

1. Don't you *want* people who are successful in life/business to be your government decision makers? They would certainly seem to be the most qualified. Nothing is more cutthroat than the business world, so success there is IMO a good indicator of how well someone will survive/perform in the political world.

2. We will never get around the amount of money needed to run an effective campaign. This means you must either be someone referenced in "number 1" above, or come from a well connected family. That said, it *is* still possible for relative unknowns to rise to the top (Clinton).

[marbles]

"This shouldn´t be about pro/contra the war, I´m just curious how somebody in the USA fells about this, esp. if he/she has some relative/friend fighting over there."

--I have two acquaintances involved in it. Even though neither one is a super-close friend of mine, I'm both proud and worried about them. I assume that reaction is the norm.

As for Mr. Moore's argument, it's exceptionally weak in its hollowness. Whoop-de-doo, the president would prefer his daughters not fight in a war... Do you know any parent that would answer that question any other way?

A sidenote: Even though I generally disagree with his positions, I have really enjoyed Michael Moore's work over the years... It's been clever, witty, and generally presented with an interesting spin. His little outburst at the Oscars, on the other hand, had none of that. Pure garbage from an otherwise very talented artist.

[adios]

"Isn't it a poor system that throws up a rich, tied-to-business set of people's representatives? (Sorry, moving into a different argument her)."

Yes you are but since you moved there. I would state that it is more accurate to say that the congresional members are tied-to-special interest groups.

[nicky g]

". Don't you *want* people who are successful in life/business to be your government decision makers? They would certainly seem to be the most qualified. Nothing is more cutthroat than the business world, so success there is IMO a good indicator of how well someone will survive/perform in the political world. "

Business success isn't the only kind of success - far from it. (Plus the way things are run these days you get the likes of George Bush, who are from the business community but weren't exactly business "successes"). Sure, the business community should be represented but I want more people there who will judge something by how it will affect everyone rather than just a financial/businesss point-of-view.



"2. We will never get around the amount of money needed to run an effective campaign. This means you must either be someone referenced in "number 1" above, or come from a well connected family. "

2 .Plenty of other countries get round this perfectly well.

[HDPM]

West Point and Annapolis (and since the '50's) the Air Force Academy, are actually set up on a very politically progressive model. A standing army was seen as a danger because it falls under the executive branch of the government. A professional officer corps was subject to being selected and controlled by one man or political party, thereby being a potential support for monarchy or dictatorship. So when the military academies were established, admission was put under Congressional control. That is why you need to be nominated by somebody in Congress to get in. Rather than being elitist, this practice is anti-elite. Congress, particularly the House of Representatives, will see to it that people outside of typical elite groups will get in. The sons (and daughters now) of members of all political parties will get in. People from all parts of the country will get in. Even after the Civil War, kids from Southern states were going to get in. Sure, it helps to have ties to your Congressman, but the US professional officer corps has always been more diverse (yes, even when there was blatant racial discrimination in admissions) that that of other countries. You need to be reasonably intelligent and educated to get in, but you don't have to be stellar or perfect or a member of a prominent family. And once you are in, the education is free and you draw a small paycheck. For that reason, kids from poor or lower middle class backgrounds often go to the military academies. I think the education is overrated in some ways and there have always been various problems with the service academies, but when you look at their mission, they have succeeded overall. They have produced some very important historical figures and have produced a whole bunch of competent, successful military leaders from all kinds of backgrounds.

[Martin Aigner]

Thanks for this very informative post. I really didn´t know that.

Regards

Martin Aigner